I think you're very hard to type, Night. I can see you as INFJ, but you'd have to be a different kind of INFJ than I am. I'm not even positive that I am an INFJ, so I don't have a lot to stand on. I suppose eNFP or INTJ is still possible as well, but I don't see ENTP at all.
I hate to derail this thread, but I want to address this. It seems like you have exactly the same perception of INJs that I do of INPs. In fact, what you claimed INJs do, is exactly what INPs seem to do that frustrates me.
My first instinct is to say that you've mistyped those Js as Ps. IN_Js... I've rarely seen any of them experience compulsion to do the same J things like an ESTJ. Stuff like cleaning the desk or their room or whatever.
If your Ni doesn't coincide in some way with theirs, there's bound to be frustration. They'll seem like they're trying to change the subject, but really, they're just looking to see more deeply into their home-made perspective/idea.
That's Ni.
Ne wants instead to see the impact their idea has. This means forgetting the original idea for a moment, and observing everything surrounding it.
Relevant to an IN_P, they are likely to come back to the same thing over a period of time, but typically they'll drop it once they've had some bit of satisfaction -- a puzzle solved/friend made/wrong righted, and once they have it may never bother them again.
It's also likely the IN_Ps you're talking about were trying to assess something that was impossible to observe. That is, it had to be figured purely on their Introverted judgement. It's really hard, and some things just plain can't be solved that way. Sometimes you
need to have something to look at (which is when the IN_P will start asking questions, and might look the same as the IN_J at least regarding conversation).
Using this method you've got to search for singularity of judgement as opposed to singularity of perception.
I'm still thinking on how to put my method for figuring which is which into words.
I always justified this by saying that INPs were judgment dominant, and thus had already made their decision on internal principles (Ti or Fi), and were only flexible about the way they presented this internal system, and about allowing others to disagree as long as they weren't forced to go along with it themselves. It seems to have held for me.
My problem with rhetoric like this is that it completely strips the meaning from these words. They have too many interpretations.
Type theorists have gone and turned typology into astrology. It's more marketable that way, and if we have really nice vague wording -- wording just familiar enough to make us think we know what we're talking about, but just vague enough that it's really just a bunch of hot air -- people are more likely to buy into it on concept and then buy into the books and tests.
Fuck Meyers Briggs and any other idiot who's got
any profit to make off this.
I figured out a long time ago that where money is, learning isn't.
That's my way of saying "there's nothing in the above worth responding to"
ENPs seem a bit more capable of seeing other perspectives, although they'd rather change the subject than their perspective on it, and it can be hard to get them focused on changing perspectives. Unlike INPs however, they seem to be able to do it easily, even though they still don't seem like they want to.
One thing that all NPs seem prone to, in my experience, is exaggeration in order to make a point.
All Ns do that. Y'ever heard an ENTJ try to get someone to do something? They'll try to make it sound as if not only their life, but the very fabric of the universe is relying on some you eating the pit of a cherry.
In other words, what you're describing as Ni is what I would have attributed to dominant Ti or Fi previously. AFAIK, Ni is mostly about looking at a subject from multiple perspectives, although Te or Fe might argue for one perspective.
That's backwards. Subject judgement is singular focus, ergo one thing is to be decided on, while trying to see from every angle all at once. Look at ESTP for example: They'll notice every damned thing in the room in a matter of seconds. They'll remember it too. And then later someone asks them where they set their beer down, and they can say "Oh you put it in the other room under the table next to the stuffed animal and the empty plate."
The point of Extraverted Perception is keeping track of everything in the environment for Introverted Judgement to work out its problems.
Then we look at ENTP. Broadscope intuition would see as many perspectives as possible to figure out one single problem. Of course it takes in that information anyway, which comes in handy when Ti needs to figure something out, it has the resources available. The best and most innovative physicists are NTPs (most type-ists will say they're all INTP, but those are just the ones who have the diligence to write it all down)
Singular focus perception would rather pick one, and then look as far down the road as possible into and after that one.
An IN_P couldn't do that, unless they continuously act on their intuitions, and even then, it's still not introverted perception, because they're not tracking it all in their head beforehand as if it were the only way things can/should be (this, often being the spoken -- genuine or not -- creed of an N_J), they're seeing all around them at once, and then deciding from there.
I suppose I'm curious now... do you think that one of us has mistyped people, that we've both met people who mistyped themselves, or that we've interpreted the same behavior in opposite ways?
If by one of us you mean you, then I'd say it's possible.
It's not your fault really...
You're J, meaning your Judgements attach to externally derived metrics. If your sources use lame wording, you're stuck with that assessment. Je doesn't do well to come up with its own way of wording a concept.
In conjunction with the poor availability of worthwhile material, it's no wonder there's such confusion with what Ni and Ji are and do.