INTJs tend to be really selective with paying attention to external realities, if they cant instantly see the relevance of something, they judge it as irrelevant and wont pay any attention to it.
Yes, to a degree. But do you understand
why? Do you understand that there is something going on, here, that you aren't seeing?
You note the dismissal, which you think is preemptive, but don't you dismiss possibilities precisely because they aren't true, in your understanding?
INTJ and INTP hold different kinds of truths to be constant.
Also note that INTJ statements aren't necessarily dismissing certain truths, any more than you would dismiss the statement "one equals one" as untrue; they're dismissing
irrelevancies, not truths. Your truths don't often prove/disprove things in the INTJ perspective, just as saying "one equals one" doesn't prove/disprove any other mathematical thoughts you might have in mind.
This can speed up the process, but if this ignored thing has more fundamental and not so obvious relevance, it can lead to big mistakes.
In the case of believing in astrology, I'd agree. In the case of solving problems, generally not.
Why? INTJs arrive at the mistakes faster, and iteratively correct them.
The real INTJ weakness, here, is susceptibility to confirmation bias: then the corrections don't happen.
What makes this worse, is that if the theory is built on ignoring something significant(something that would wreck the theory), its hard to go back and change the whole theory because of one consistency, especially since it already makes sense(due to ignoring this important thing) and adding this thing to the theory would make the current theory to not make sense -> adding it doesent make sense. INTJs are afterall building an Ni image from the singular(but multiple) Te things.
INTJ analysis goes from defining what something is based on external realities(Te) and combining these definitions by abstracting them(removing what isnt seen as necessary) in order to figure out the relationships between these things to form an big picture view of the things seen as being connected.
That's where you're misinterpreting the INTJ thought process, because you're treating it as if it were an INTP thought process. And yes, I see INTPs get
one thing wrong, only one, and it takes an extremely long time to correct the error, never mind the amount of time it takes to sift through their version of truth to find the error.
And yes, that's exactly why INTPs are very careful with the truth, because one wrong fact requires a lot of work to rebuild.
INTJs don't think like this at all. There is no rigid scaffolding of logic. There is a more quantum fuzziness of functionality/usability. The rigid concepts in the INTJ aren't particular facts or elements of reality, but rather the functional relationships that exist between all sorts of things. Newton's theory of gravity is a classical example of this: it doesn't matter if it's a duck or a knife, gravity works exactly the same way in all cases (and as per my earlier post using example theories of gravity, the theory of gravity doesn't need to be exact in order to work correctly).
So for an INTJ, the level of correction needed isn't nearly as severe. We test our internal model against reality, and it either matches (indicating that we have a sufficient understanding) or it doesn't, in which case we figure out why. Then we make a change to our model, usually the equivalent of changing a line of code in a piece of software, and try again.
And when problem solving, we're doing this dozens of times before the problem is solved.
INTPs on the other hand perceive the big picture and connections between things in the external world and figuring out what it is that connects these things to understand the big picture in deep level.
Do you understand that there is a big picture you don't perceive? Are you aware of the depths in areas you don't usually look?
Naturally there can be mistakes with this approach also, but its usually about missing something in the external world big picture. ... <more apt description>
Yes, that's a decent summary of how INTPs think.
I dont agree with this at all. For INTP the problem space is different to INTJ. For INTP the solution may be something outside the problem space, while INTJ tends to look solution only from the problem. So there is no need to change the problem space in order to find an solution outside of it or to switch the problem spaces. You need to remember that INTJs perceive external world via Se, while INTPs use Ne for that.
I'm not saying you need the INTJ problem space, I'm saying you don't see it (or rather, them). I
am saying that this shows up in comparing the static, singular, generalized INTP solutions, to the more dynamic nature of INTJ solutions.
Consider chaos theory as exemplified by weather patterns. Collectively, there is an overall INTP-style understanding of weather patterns and how they work: we understand how rain falls from clouds, why wind blows, how storm fronts form, and so on, in a general way. But we can't reliably predict the weather more than about a week in advance.
Keep in mind this is just a descriptive analogy: I use it because both broad generalizations and specific instances of dynamics are well understood. Using this analogy, an INTP is focused on the broad understanding of weather patterns in general, and an INTJ is focused on how the weather is going to evolve in the near term.
The INTJ/INTP misunderstandings can be summarized like this: A true statement about weather in general doesn't help you determine whether it will rain tomorrow. A true statement about whether it will rain tomorrow doesn't help you understand weather in general.
Each side finds the other's truths irrelevant to one's own particular focus.
This currently known version of reality is the key here. INTPs only accept one version of reality, but this version of reality is unknown. INTJs on the other hand claim to know the reality, even tho its just their version of the reality, not the real reality. Reality doesent change, only the perception of it does.
Reality changes all the time.
Is it raining today?
Will it rain tomorrow?
The perception of reality isnt same as the reality, even tho INTJs see it as so and make the judgments(and the big picture based on them) based on the perception of reality and see it as the real reality.
Your "real" reality is just as abstract, if not more so, than your so-called "perception of reality".
This is why INTJ approach seems ridiculously superficial to INTP. This superficial reality really is the perception of what is and analysis what it is(in other words SeTe), INTPs can instantly see that this isnt the reality if it doesent make logical sense compared to the core issue seen by NeTi. However, when it does, its most likely something the INTP didnt think before, at least from that perspective and can be useful.
So, in the end, figuratively speaking, you understand weather very well, but not only can you not predict the weather, you find the concept of predicting weather to be useless to you. (Again, this is figurative; I'm sure you can predict the weather as well as anyone. It's the focus on dynamic instances vs overall abstraction I'm pointing out.)