[INTJ] Do INTJs Overdevelop Thinking and Underdevelop Intuition?

[Entropic]

If they would favor Te over Ni to such a degree they'd be ENTJs, not INTJs.

I don't think the question is especially meaningful. I'm sorry, you don't just go, "Hey, I think I'll develop my Te, now," or "I think it's time to work on Fi."

We need to remember that the functions are "how you think", and it's remarkably difficult to "think about how you think". Even back when I was still in single-digit ages, I recall "thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking" and noting that it was just an endless recursion. In the end, you don't really understand how you think without a great deal of self awareness or a good strong structure/language upon which one can rely to describe and develop such an understanding.

One of the things I learned as I investigated the functions is that Ni, for me, really is "how I think." Not just sort of. Not just in an unconscious way. Not just in an "intuitive" way. It's how I synthesize my understanding of the world around me. Te lends a degree of sanity, but no it doesn't even begin to drive my thought process.

I can look back on my life, before I did school, in preschool and kindergarten, in elementary and middle school, in high school, in college and graduate school, I was always using Ni. There was no way I could emphasize Te to a degree greater than I used Ni. When I pay attention to how I learned, how I developed understanding, it was always via Ni. Te was always secondary, providing a means of support, verifying that my Ni-understanding reflected reality, enabling me to communicate my Ni-vision to those who regard my intuitions as surprising and inobvious.

The reason I know that Ni is dominant for me is that I don't do "calculations" in my head: I "see" the answer. Where people get confused about Ni is that it is so often associated with "Ah ha!" insights or other intuitive leaps, when for me, there is no "insight", there is no, "Ah ha!", there is no intuitive leap. I simply just keep on looking at the input data and switch out contexts, eventually hitting upon a context that fits everything I've observed, at which point I use that context to leap to new ideas outside the context.

Now, all INTJs tend to emphasize Te to a degree, but that has nothing to do with "overdevelopment" of Te or underdevelopment of intuition. It has to do with the ability to use Te to turn our intuitive grasp of everything into something concrete enough that we can verify our understanding. We don't "overdevelop" Te so much as rely upon Te to allow communication of our more complicated ideas, especially in early years.

These days, I incorporate Fi ad Se, because Ni and Te alone leave a bunch of ideas and understandings unaddressed. Ni-Te needs a conclusion. Fi-Se simply needs to understand what IS and eventually perhaps develop a values-based understanding of the world.

I agree with this, but I do get "a-ha" moments. They tend to often build up over time and some of them are more obvious than others. It's not so much "a-ha" in that I exactly know the answer and it ends there, but instead it tends to create a lot of other connections in my mind between that which I know but I did not previously see a connection between. I wonder how much that ties into 5 though, since I seek those kinds of revelations as a part of my pathology. I need to figure things out and how they work.

As a more general point, I think I mostly get "impressions". They're impressions because they are just that, vibes, feelings, a sense of what is. Often in a vague manner and I dislike when I must consciously untangle it to make sense of it because it requires a lot of effort. I was for having a feeling lately that my image fix could be wrong and there is 3 influence there so I ended up with the feeling that either it's 3w4 or 4w3. No particular logic to it or why that is but just a sense that something simply is this way. In the end I settled on that 4w3 must be more correct because when I tried to picture my tritype as 583 that did not simply make any sense in my mind. There was no real logic to that, it just simply didn't so I decided I'm still properly typed but the wing on my 4 is wrong.

I do have a fairly strong and developed Te as an egoic perspective but at the end of the day, no, Te is not what makes my world spin around. It's not like I think, "Let's Te now", that doesn't work. The only function we would ever have such conscious control over would be the dominant in the first place. I can indeed go, "I want to analyze the meaning of this", but that's as far as I'll go. Categorical distinctions happen and I can refer to outside sources but if I have to choose between that and my own meaning and understanding of things, I know what I'll prefer and it's not Te.

Te helps to make sense of things, especially to others, but that's about it. This is why my writing and thinking process was so garbled when I was a teenager and why so few apparently seeemd to understand what I was trying to convey or where I was coming from. I was once trying to explain how I calculate arithmetics in high school and my teacher (and apparently no other of the other students) actually understood what I was talking about or how I performed the reasoning the way I did it. So if I were to calculate what 43 + 76 is, I'd do it like this: 40 + 70 = 110 + 3 = 9 110 + 9 = 119. I'll be curious to see how many can make sense of that now. To me that is so stupid-obvious.

As for Fi and Se, I won't even comment on that. I was consciously trying to make value judgements the other day and it just didn't work. Maybe it has to do with my age, but both Se and Fi are clearly unconscious and for now I don't care if they are that way or not. If I Fi or Se it happens, and that's all there is to it.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't think the question is especially meaningful. I'm sorry, you don't just go, "Hey, I think I'll develop my Te, now," or "I think it's time to work on Fi."

We need to remember that the functions are "how you think", and it's remarkably difficult to "think about how you think". Even back when I was still in single-digit ages, I recall "thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking" and noting that it was just an endless recursion. In the end, you don't really understand how you think without a great deal of self awareness or a good strong structure/language upon which one can rely to describe and develop such an understanding.

One of the things I learned as I investigated the functions is that Ni, for me, really is "how I think." Not just sort of. Not just in an unconscious way. Not just in an "intuitive" way. It's how I synthesize my understanding of the world around me. Te lends a degree of sanity, but no it doesn't even begin to drive my thought process.

I can look back on my life, before I did school, in preschool and kindergarten, in elementary and middle school, in high school, in college and graduate school, I was always using Ni. There was no way I could emphasize Te to a degree greater than I used Ni. When I pay attention to how I learned, how I developed understanding, it was always via Ni. Te was always secondary, providing a means of support, verifying that my Ni-understanding reflected reality, enabling me to communicate my Ni-vision to those who regard my intuitions as surprising and inobvious.

In speaking about "developing Te" we are certainly using the benefit of hindsight, in that MB types and jungian functions gives us a structure or language to describe certain aspects of maturing and learning. When I look back on my life, I clearly remember a time when I was maybe 10-12 when I learned to organize, evaluate, and successfully communicate all the thoughts in my head to another person, on the "outside". I remember how difficult this was at first, until I got used to the questions I had to ask, the structures that proved most effective, etc. I was helped greatly by a family friend, more like an extra uncle, who would discuss all sorts of topics with me like history, politics, economics, etc. and question me until I could present and defend my thoughts in a logical and coherent manner. I remember thinking "I have to think about my thoughts THIS way??!!". But once I got the hang of it, and saw how effective it was, I was hooked and never looked back.

So yes, we develop Te, perhaps unintentionally, even unknowingly, but it is part of how we learn to navigate the world effectively.

Now, all INTJs tend to emphasize Te to a degree, but that has nothing to do with "overdevelopment" of Te or underdevelopment of intuition. It has to do with the ability to use Te to turn our intuitive grasp of everything into something concrete enough that we can verify our understanding. We don't "overdevelop" Te so much as rely upon Te to allow communication of our more complicated ideas, especially in early years.

I suppose it is not so much over/underdevelopment as neglect or over/underemphasis. This is what I described in my last post, when I must tie up most of my mental energy and attention on things that have little to do with Ni. I can imagine that many jobs place a person in just this kind of situation, which would be unpleasant for an Ni-dom.

 

[gandalf]

The reason I know that Ni is dominant for me is that I don't do "calculations" in my head: I "see" the answer.

That was very interesting a point as it reminded me of something I discovered about myself lately.

I have always trusted my intuition when it comes to something I know I am good at. That would be my hobbies and my profession.

I have for a very long time felt myself somehow awkward in social situations yet I never have really had problems dealing with people. I have had this strange feeling that no matter how hard I try and how much I think I learn, I will still always feel some sort of incompetence in being with people, coming up with thoughts that I could and should have done better inconveniently often. It has been as if questioning my ability to learn that one specific area of life.

That was until something happened in my life lately. Something that I am not going to get in here and now made me realize that I had not been trusting my intuition when it comes to being with people. I had had a lot of some sort of ideas that now seem to have been mostly right but I had been thinking too much and, as it seems to me now, trying to calculate when I should have just trusted my intuition. As soon as I realized that and actually let myself go, really trusting the Ni in whatever I was doing, I saw an astounishingly fast change in me. All of those problems seemed to have vanished right away as if they had never existed.

 

[Azure Flame]

most people I speak to who think they're INTJ's are actually ENTJ's, and most INTJ's I speak to think they're INTP's.

ENTJ's need to learn to focus on their intuition.
INTJ's need to realize most of what they say is actually Ni Fi, and need to use Te to observe their own subjectivity.

 

[Entropic]

In speaking about "developing Te" we are certainly using the benefit of hindsight, in that MB types and jungian functions gives us a structure or language to describe certain aspects of maturing and learning. When I look back on my life, I clearly remember a time when I was maybe 10-12 when I learned to organize, evaluate, and successfully communicate all the thoughts in my head to another person, on the "outside". I remember how difficult this was at first, until I got used to the questions I had to ask, the structures that proved most effective, etc. I was helped greatly by a family friend, more like an extra uncle, who would discuss all sorts of topics with me like history, politics, economics, etc. and question me until I could present and defend my thoughts in a logical and coherent manner. I remember thinking "I have to think about my thoughts THIS way??!!". But once I got the hang of it, and saw how effective it was, I was hooked and never looked back.

So yes, we develop Te, perhaps unintentionally, even unknowingly, but it is part of how we learn to navigate the world effectively.

You cannot develop Te per se as a function perspective. You cannot. What you can do is to differentiate it into your ego meaning thinking as a function perspective is accepted into the ego as an egoic function, but this is very different from the idea of developing Te as a function perspective. If Te is auxiliary it will always be a slave to Ni.

I suppose it is not so much over/underdevelopment as neglect or over/underemphasis. This is what I described in my last post, when I must tie up most of my mental energy and attention on things that have little to do with Ni. I can imagine that many jobs place a person in just this kind of situation, which would be unpleasant for an Ni-dom.

Ni will always be the dominant ego perspective and Ni will always attract the most psychic energy. If I cannot Ni I automatically feel extremely drained or like a fish out of water. If Ni is not the function perspective that gets the most energy you aren't an Ni dom.

 

[HongDou]

I wouldn't go as far to say they overdevelop Te and underdevelop Ni. That would make them ENTJs? I think you just see INTJs using Te more than you see them using Ni because Te is external while Ni is internal. That's really the only explanation I can give.

 

[Coriolis]

Te helps to make sense of things, especially to others, but that's about it. This is why my writing and thinking process was so garbled when I was a teenager and why so few apparently seeemd to understand what I was trying to convey or where I was coming from. I was once trying to explain how I calculate arithmetics in high school and my teacher (and apparently no other of the other students) actually understood what I was talking about or how I performed the reasoning the way I did it. So if I were to calculate what 43 + 76 is, I'd do it like this: 40 + 70 = 110 + 3 = 9 110 + 9 = 119. I'll be curious to see how many can make sense of that now. To me that is so stupid-obvious.

You cannot develop Te per se as a function perspective. You cannot. What you can do is to differentiate it into your ego meaning thinking as a function perspective is accepted into the ego as an egoic function, but this is very different from the idea of developing Te as a function perspective. If Te is auxiliary it will always be a slave to Ni.

A distinction of semantics. Whether we describe it as developing a function, or differentiating it, we accomplish it by learning to do things like what you describe in the first quote above. Yes, Te helps make sense of things, especially to others. There is more to it than that, but even if not, that is huge, especially for people who are as internally focused as INTJs.

Ni will always be the dominant ego perspective and Ni will always attract the most psychic energy. If I cannot Ni I automatically feel extremely drained or like a fish out of water. If Ni is not the function perspective that gets the most energy you aren't an Ni dom.

Not necessarily. Anyone can be put in situations where their preferred functions don't work well and they are pushed into using others. To some degree this is beneficial, in drawing us outside our comfort zones so we can develop or differentiate those other functions. Done to excess, however, it has exactly the result you describe as draining/fish-out-of-water, and I described as stifiling, turning my world two-dimensional. It doesn't make us ENTJs, just stressed and unhappy INTJs.

Moreover, as I have written many times before, none of us use any of our functions in a vacuum. We don't use Ni or Te, we use Ni and Te (and Fi and Se), together, all the time; just not in anywhere near equal proportions, or with equivalent comfort and facility.

I wouldn't go as far to say they overdevelop Te and underdevelop Ni. That would make them ENTJs? I think you just see INTJs using Te more than you see them using Ni because Te is external while Ni is internal. That's really the only explanation I can give.

This is an accurate and relevant observation. The aux function will be more apparent in all introverts, due to its extraverted nature. INTJs can thus appear ENTJ-like, but it is not the inherent and most natural "us".

 

[Entropic]

I wouldn't go as far to say they overdevelop Te and underdevelop Ni. That would make them ENTJs? I think you just see INTJs using Te more than you see them using Ni because Te is external while Ni is internal. That's really the only explanation I can give.

I don't think that's not true. Even if you study my cognition and I rely heavily on Te, I will always favor my Ni model over Te any day of the week. So it's not even a matter of something looking like something else but rather whether people know where to look at all.

A distinction of semantics. Whether we describe it as developing a function, or differentiating it, we accomplish it by learning to do things like what you describe in the first quote above. Yes, Te helps make sense of things, especially to others. There is more to it than that, but even if not, that is huge, especially for people who are as internally focused as INTJs.

Not at all. Development suggests something different, that something can improve or become better.

Not necessarily. Anyone can be put in situations where their preferred functions don't work well and they are pushed into using others. To some degree this is beneficial, in drawing us outside our comfort zones so we can develop or differentiate those other functions. Done to excess, however, it has exactly the result you describe as draining/fish-out-of-water, and I described as stifiling, turning my world two-dimensional. It doesn't make us ENTJs, just stressed and unhappy INTJs.

But why would you rely on a perspective you don't favor over a perspective that you favor? Also, I don't think it's beneficial at all. It is usually painful for people to leave their cognitive preferences. Socionics is pretty clear on that while one can accept the inferior it is better to stick to your ego functions because those are the ones you're the most adept at.

Moreover, as I have written many times before, none of us use any of our functions in a vacuum. We don't use Ni or Te, we use Ni and Te (and Fi and Se), together, all the time; just not in anywhere near equal proportions, or with equivalent comfort and facility.

More accurately, we use Ni-Se. Te-Fi is more secondary if used at all. You don't have to prefer a Te perspective.

This is an accurate and relevant observation. The aux function will be more apparent in all introverts, due to its extraverted nature. INTJs can thus appear ENTJ-like, but it is not the inherent and most natural "us".

I disagree. An introvert is easily spotted by looking at where your cognition is headed.

 

[WhoCares]

Do you think INTJs overdevelop Te and underdevelop Ni (or something similar to those lines)?

Please explain your thoughts/reasoning. If you think they do,
1. why do you think this happens?
2. what is the impact on the INTJs development as a person? and
3. how does it effect their lives?

I cant explain in terms of Te and Ni because to be honest I havent any idea whatsoever about those things. I couldn't be bothered getting into MBTI to that degree. Just did the test and got my type, lost all interest after that.

Sooo...anyway. All i know is that I base 90% or more of my decisions on gut instinct and use my rationale to justify them later. My thinking is used mainly for research to validate, or invalidate decisions I have already arrived at by gut feel. I wont necessarily act on those decisions until research is performed but my decision rarely changes in any case. Contrary to all appearances of me being a meticulous planner and strategiser, I am actually a reckless fly by the seat of my pants kind of individual who manages to project some sense of orderliness to others. Which comes in handy when you want to stand in judgement of other people who do exactly the same as you with less semblance of thoughtfulness about it.

 

[Coriolis]

Not at all. Development suggests something different, that something can improve or become better.

I consider learning new skills, or learning to communicate better to be forms of improvement.

But why would you rely on a perspective you don't favor over a perspective that you favor? Also, I don't think it's beneficial at all. It is usually painful for people to leave their cognitive preferences. Socionics is pretty clear on that while one can accept the inferior it is better to stick to your ego functions because those are the ones you're the most adept at.

It can be painful to go beyond one's cognitive preferences. Growth often is painful, but if we stay in our comfort zone, we will stagnate. Yes, we will always rely most on our preferred and strongest functions, but sometimes they are not the right ones for the job. I don't so much rely on the less preferred function, as call upon it to meet a specific need. Every time I do this, it becomes a bit more familar and comfortable, though will never take the place of my more preferred functions. It is a bit like learning a foreign language.

More accurately, we use Ni-Se. Te-Fi is more secondary if used at all. You don't have to prefer a Te perspective.

I disagree with this weighting, for myself, and for the other INTJs I know. Yes, Se balances Ni to some degree, but Te is how we interact with the world and make our internal thoughts external. Unless we are hermits, we engage this quite a bit, and for those I know it is a strong and useful aux function. Fi effects are also quite evident, though less obvious, acknowledged, or understood. Type is not about what we "have to do", it is about simply what is.

I disagree. An introvert is easily spotted by looking at where your cognition is headed.

This is not a disagreement, just a parallel observation.

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] If I may, how did you determine that Ni is the most undervalued function by a longshot? Whilst to me it seems intuitively correct my study of history seems to suggest that ancient peoples admired Ni in its own way whilst Fi and Ti have always occupied a position of indifference or inconvenience and eclipsed by their extroverted function counterparts. In times of relative powerlessness ancient people would look to anyone who could provide them the advantage - seers who could predict the extent which the Nile would fertilise the Egyptian flood plains this year, those who claimed to be able to interpret the stars or read tea leaves to advise the outcome of battles or those who could claim communication with the Gods to determine whether good fortune would come to a people or bad times. Egypt, Persia, Ancient Rome, India all valued such things. Plenty of Ni or Ni wannabes around with impressions of it woven into the fabric of society which was gradually rooted out (Christian church was probably at fault.)

On the other hand how many Ji-doms through history have been valued or understood? It's usually those in the right place at the right time to have other types adopt their views or publish their views.

Ni doms represent 3 - 8 % of society collectively. Lets average it at 5.5%
ENFJs and ENTJs, who place it in the auxiliary represent 4 - 9 % if the populations, Let's average that at 6.5.
Those numbers make it very underrespented in the population. and special snowflakes are not as much appreciated as people would like to think.

I think all introverted types develop our (by definition) extraverted aux functions more than extraverts develop their introverted aux. We have more incentive to do so just to interact with the world in daily life. The particular utility of Te adds more motivation. I have seen Te described as the "least common denominator" function, in that it deals with external, objectively verifiable facts and evaluations. The comment was meant to be derogatory, suggesting that Te lacks creativity, insight, motivation, in short the richer and more meaningful aspects of human thought. It is often, however, what gets everyone on the same page, operating with the same facts and structure, so they can go on productively developing those higher concepts.

As an INTJ develops aux Te, it does not take him/her long to appreciate how useful it is not only in evaluating and tweaking Ni(Fi) visions and plans, but also in getting other people to understand and support them. This ability to improve and to communicate leads to greater success in putting plans into action. INTJs may suffer more than other types when our aux is underdeveloped, because of the nature of Ni as Highlander describes above. Add to this how much INTJs value utility and getting things done, and the effectiveness of Te motivates us to develop it even more.

This is exactly right

Developing Te is in general a very good thing for INTJs. The idea of overdevelopment implies that there can be too much of a good thing. When this happens, I think it is less from any conscious rejection of Ni, or even individual Ni ideas, as from the simple fact that time spent focusing on A reduces the time focusing on B. For me this happens when I get drawn into the detailed execution of projects, having to bother with schedules and spreadsheets, regulations and paperwork. I start to feel very separated from the higher level concepts, which feels stifiling. It is as if my world has become two-dimensional. As soon as these demands let up and time permits, I have to get back to the bigger picture thinking. Interestingly, a quick way to short circuit this is to do something Se-like, very concrete, physical, and in-the-moment. Exercise, playing music, or handcrafting usually work.

Yes exactly

I don't think the question is especially meaningful. I'm sorry, you don't just go, "Hey, I think I'll develop my Te, now," or "I think it's time to work on Fi."

We need to remember that the functions are "how you think", and it's remarkably difficult to "think about how you think". Even back when I was still in single-digit ages, I recall "thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking" and noting that it was just an endless recursion. In the end, you don't really understand how you think without a great deal of self awareness or a good strong structure/language upon which one can rely to describe and develop such an understanding.

One of the things I learned as I investigated the functions is that Ni, for me, really is "how I think." Not just sort of. Not just in an unconscious way. Not just in an "intuitive" way. It's how I synthesize my understanding of the world around me. Te lends a degree of sanity, but no it doesn't even begin to drive my thought process.

It's different for me. Te takes on a stronger role. It's what people understand. Ni sounds like voodoo for an average person. I am able to communicate those intuitive impressions directly but they don't often make sense to people. THey get confused. With Te You can communicate and they get it. Proclivities with it are helpful to one advancing in work.

The reason I know that Ni is dominant for me is that I don't do "calculations" in my head: I "see" the answer. Where people get confused about Ni is that it is so often associated with "Ah ha!" insights or other intuitive leaps, when for me, there is no "insight", there is no, "Ah ha!", there is no intuitive leap. I simply just keep on looking at the input data and switch out contexts, eventually hitting upon a context that fits everything I've observed, at which point I use that context to leap to new ideas outside the context.

For me, it works both ways. I get the Ah ha! momements fairly regularly and the intuitive leaps. I also do a lot of context shifting, Ah has! are much more fun.

Now, all INTJs tend to emphasize Te to a degree, but that has nothing to do with "overdevelopment" of Te or underdevelopment of intuition. It has to do with the ability to use Te to turn our intuitive grasp of everything into something concrete enough that we can verify our understanding. We don't "overdevelop" Te so much as rely upon Te to allow communication of our more complicated ideas, especially in early years.

If they would favor Te over Ni to such a degree they'd be ENTJs, not INTJs.

As a more general point, I think I mostly get "impressions". They're impressions because they are just that, vibes, feelings, a sense of what is. Often in a vague manner and I dislike when I must consciously untangle it to make sense of it because it requires a lot of effort. I was for having a feeling lately that my image fix could be wrong and there is 3 influence there so I ended up with the feeling that either it's 3w4 or 4w3. No particular logic to it or why that is but just a sense that something simply is this way. In the end I settled on that 4w3 must be more correct because when I tried to picture my tritype as 583 that did not simply make any sense in my mind. There was no real logic to that, it just simply didn't so I decided I'm still properly typed but the wing on my 4 is wrong.

I do that too.

most people I speak to who think they're INTJ's are actually ENTJ's, and most INTJ's I speak to think they're INTP's.

ENTJ's need to learn to focus on their intuition.
INTJ's need to realize most of what they say is actually Ni Fi, and need to use Te to observe their own subjectivity.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. How are you diagnosing their type? What is your method?

I wouldn't go as far to say they overdevelop Te and underdevelop Ni. That would make them ENTJs? I think you just see INTJs using Te more than you see them using Ni because Te is external while Ni is internal. That's really the only explanation I can give.

No, it wouldn't make you an ENTJ. You can overdevelop something you're good at and underdevelop something you're great and and still be better at the area where you're really talented. It's a matter of relative proportion. Also, if you have a different/strange way of thinking - not linear logic as many think it it the only way - you are made to feel stupid. You soon change your approach.

 

[Kalach]

I never did.

I feel so alone.

 

[Elfboy]

Do you think INTJs overdevelop Te and underdevelop Ni (or something similar to those lines)?
Please explain your thoughts/reasoning. If you think they do,
1. why do you think this happens?
2. what is the impact on the INTJs development as a person? and
3. how does it effect their lives?

what qualifies as "over developing"? I would be inclined to think the dominant instinct would be pretty strong by default, so wouldn't it make more sense to develop less preferred functions?

 

[Standuble]

Ni doms represent 3 - 8 % of society collectively. Lets average it at 5.5%
ENFJs and ENTJs, who place it in the auxiliary represent 4 - 9 % if the populations, Let's average that at 6.5.
Those numbers make it very underrespented in the population. and special snowflakes are not as much appreciated as people would like to think.

Underrepresent does not equal undervalue. The key variables are perceived worth and perceived potential of contribution. For example a rare jewel of a pleasant colour will be far more expensive than a common jewel of a similar colour.

In my above case study Ni-doms would fill a role perfectly which few others could excel in. Nile flood predictions would not be a good role for an Ne user or an S, they need to know what will happen so they can use it to their advantage, no multiple possibilities or descriptions of what happened last time. In the above case increased rarity helps them because TPTB would not be as likely to find someone else to fit their shoes, they could be pretty much invaluable.
Compare yourselves to SF types - exist in huge quantities yet are dare I say superfluous for the most part to any organisation outside of basic or rank and file positions anybody could do.

 

[uumlau]

I agree with this, but I do get "a-ha" moments. They tend to often build up over time and some of them are more obvious than others. It's not so much "a-ha" in that I exactly know the answer and it ends there, but instead it tends to create a lot of other connections in my mind between that which I know but I did not previously see a connection between. I wonder how much that ties into 5 though, since I seek those kinds of revelations as a part of my pathology. I need to figure things out and how they work.

I should note that when I say there is no "a-ha" for me, I mean more that I don't look at them the same way I used to. I'm no longer "surprised" that I suddenly understand something that I just let simmer in my mind. Why? I let it "simmer" on purpose. When I reach a roadblock on X, I start working on Y instead, confident that I'll figure out X, eventually. I consciously do it this way, because trying to figure out X while I still have the roadblock is a waste of time. I have to "UNlearn" something, but I don't know what I need to unlearn. When I start thinking about Y, that erases most all of the assumptions I may have made while working on X. When I get back to X, I have to rebuild the context, and having rebuilt it, the odds are that I rebuild it "correctly" this time, at which point the solution is obvious.

When I was younger, I was surprised when this happened. Why do I suddenly understand something that was unclear before? The answer is simple: I was thinking about it wrong, before, without knowing what aspect of my thinking was wrong, and upon starting with a fresh slate, I intuitively build the parts of the context I was sure about last time, and the parts I got wrong get filled in along the way.

I believe this kind of conscious focus-then-unfocus approach lets me use my intuitive mind in a more efficient and productive way.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

What is the difference between an ENTJ and an INTJ with overdeveloped Te and underdeveloped Ni?

 

[uumlau]

What is the difference between an ENTJ and an INTJ with overdeveloped Te and underdeveloped Ni?

I do not believe that the question has meaning, because it contains assumptions about how functions are "developed."

An ENTJ leads with Te; an INTJ leads with Ni. The notion of "overdeveloped" is not applicable in either case. If Te is "overdeveloped" one is an ENTJ. Period. By definition. One is necessarily a Te dom.

An INTJ might believe that Te is "overdeveloped", but that means nothing, if one essentially is "Ni". If one is an Ni dom, then Ni is in control, because one is Ni. Te is only believed to be "in control", because Te is conscious.

This is, of course, my opinion. I'm not trying to prove a point, just saying what I believe, in terms of dominant functions and Ni and Te, and how ENTJs and INTJs perceive themselves.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I do not believe that the question has meaning, because it contains assumptions about how functions are "developed."

An ENTJ leads with Te; an INTJ leads with Ni. The notion of "overdeveloped" is not applicable in either case. If Te is "overdeveloped" one is an ENTJ. Period. By definition. One is necessarily a Te dom.

An INTJ might believe that Te is "overdeveloped", but that means nothing, if one essentially is "Ni". If one is an Ni dom, then Ni is in control, because one is Ni. Te is only believed to be "in control", because Te is conscious.

This is, of course, my opinion. I'm not trying to prove a point, just saying what I believe, in terms of dominant functions and Ni and Te, and how ENTJs and INTJs perceive themselves.

This is how I have been thinking about it, and was just curious if someone could say something convincing to make a distinction.

 

[Entropic]

I should note that when I say there is no "a-ha" for me, I mean more that I don't look at them the same way I used to. I'm no longer "surprised" that I suddenly understand something that I just let simmer in my mind. Why? I let it "simmer" on purpose. When I reach a roadblock on X, I start working on Y instead, confident that I'll figure out X, eventually. I consciously do it this way, because trying to figure out X while I still have the roadblock is a waste of time. I have to "UNlearn" something, but I don't know what I need to unlearn. When I start thinking about Y, that erases most all of the assumptions I may have made while working on X. When I get back to X, I have to rebuild the context, and having rebuilt it, the odds are that I rebuild it "correctly" this time, at which point the solution is obvious.

When I was younger, I was surprised when this happened. Why do I suddenly understand something that was unclear before? The answer is simple: I was thinking about it wrong, before, without knowing what aspect of my thinking was wrong, and upon starting with a fresh slate, I intuitively build the parts of the context I was sure about last time, and the parts I got wrong get filled in along the way.

I believe this kind of conscious focus-then-unfocus approach lets me use my intuitive mind in a more efficient and productive way.

I understand your process perfectly well and I agree that it's somewhat false to claim them to be "a-ha" moments per se in that you overly focus on the sense of "a-ha". Rather, what I do tend to focus on are all the new connections I can suddenly see. It is more the intensity of connections themselves that define the experience rather than realizing something I did not know before. This obviously happens to all people.

I tend to, just like you, get away from a problem I cannot consciously solve if I see no solution or no way to approach the problem at the time. Usually I am not even sure I engage with content this actively for most of the part. It tends to mostly be that I take in a lot of content and it just mulls in the back of my head over time and as I keep engaging other kinds of content this experience also keeps building. Then one day I just simply "know". Sometimes I can backtrack the process, sometimes I don't. It really depends on how far the process has been going on. The process that I was Ni-dominant took several months and it's therefore difficult to point to every instance that made me realize this. The process that I was transgendered took me my entire life to realize, pretty much.

Usually, I think what does happen is that there is a specific turning point, like finding the last missing puzzle piece that makes it all kind of click. When I realized I was Ni-dominant what really made me realize this was that I identified with Viktor Gulenko's cognitive style called dialectic-algorithmic that is associated with the INTJ and how I also realized that it properly identified and explained my thinking pattern very well. It was the last puzzle piece that made it click to me, even though there had been a lot of pieces already laid out to me along the way and when I go back and think of these moments I realize how obvious this is. One example being that I related more to Lenore Thomson's Ni over Ne description but being the stupid fuck I am, I was denying it, just like I've been denying me being transgender and gay for the past 25 years.

So yes, thinking about a problem the wrong way, or perhaps thinking you understand or know the problem when you really don't, because you don't know all the details to provide a wholly accurate picture. Essentially, I guess, at least for me personally, it's akin to look at an object that appears to be triangular. You see two sides, forming a V-shape so you simply assume that there is one more side connecting the two sides on the back that you cannot see. Ni is really about figuring out whether there is only one side or many sides based on the visual cues that are being given to you. You are clearly not allowed to rotate the object.

Ni then, would be akin to realizing that the object is not triangular but for instance cubic, or perhaps even more oddly shaped than this. I think for INTJs specifically, they would be more occupied focusing on the measurements, distances, shapes and so on of the actual object. I have no clue how INFJs rationally reason because of the differences in Fe-Ti so I won't even try. It's a largely foreign perspective to me despite shared Ni dominance.

 

[WALMART]

It has not historically been appreciated or valued by society.

"Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

So, wat...

I'm fairly sure it's only recently, over the past hundred years or so, has Se has gained the appreciation it rightfully deserves.