Ok lets settle this right now!

[SolitaryWalker]

Why is it that INTJs are thought of as more analytical than INTPs, and INTPs more creative?

Because INTJs have Thinking on the outside and INTPs Intuition.

If we say being analytical is associated with Thinking, than wouldnt the type that has Thinking in the first function tend to be more analytical than the type that has thinking in the second place?

Or how about, if we say that Intuition is the salient factor concerning creativity, wouldnt this suggest that the type that has Intuition in the first place would be more creative?


The case is that we are more comfortable showing the world our extroverted functions more than introverted. So with the INTP, you will not see how analytical they really are unless you're in a close association with them. You will not see the INTJ's imagination unless the environment is appropriate. In most cases you will see the rigid Te that is particular about the way that things are done.

[MacGuffin]

INTJs are Js.

INTPs are Ps.

The end.

[SolitaryWalker]

INTJs are Js.

INTPs are Ps.

The end.

INTPs are led by a judging function and INTJs by a perceiving. Socionics did a better job of labeling calling the TiNe INTj and NiTe INTp. Though Leanor Thompson did well to notice that Ni is still a left-brained function and is more easily compared to the Te.

[Rhu]

You will not see the INTJ's imagination unless the environment is appropriate. In most cases you will see the rigid Te that is particular about the way that things are done.

So we'll see your imagination if we provide an environment that gets us past your very particular exterior?

[MacGuffin]

INTPs are led by a judging function and INTJs by a perceiving. Socionics did a better job of labeling calling the TiNe INTj and NiTe INTp. Though Leanor Thompson did well to notice that Ni is still a left-brained function and is more easily compared to the Te.

Too bad function stacking is dubious and hardly a rigid system.

[SolitaryWalker]

So we'll see your imagination if we provide an environment that gets us past your very particular exterior?

What are you talking about? Nothing that I said is set in stone. Everything is negotiable. I am even going out of my way to encourage people to disagree with what I say as long as it shows that they have thought it out thoroughly. And I certainly dont think in concepts like the left-brained learners do. (Js)

Although what INTJs say, at the time, for them may be set in stone, because they cant improvise on the fly. But later, when they go on to reflect, they will appreciate someone having corrected them as their Ni loves new ideas. And Ni wont cling to the method, because Ni devised the method in the first place, it can easily devise another one. Te clings to the method because it cant create, it can only follow through. Too bad the INTJ is led by the Ni, not the Te, the function that creates and not just executes.

[Totenkindly]

... oh god, I love it when SW takes control like this... <swoon>

[SolitaryWalker]

Too bad function stacking is dubious and hardly a rigid system.

They manifest themselves in a myriad of fashions, yet it does not mean that those functions do not have a clear-cut meaning. If we perceive those types appropriately, we should have a good idea of what they are like. No need for relativism here.

[MacGuffin]

They manifest themselves in a myriad of fashions, yet it does not mean that those functions do not have a clear-cut meaning.

There is your answer.

[Totenkindly]

I think it would do you well to take a step back for a moment and recall that people existed first, and the theory was supposed to be derived from them.

As such, you could in a sense equate humanity (REAL HUMAN behavior) to the noumenal and the MBTI theory as a subset of the Real (thus equatable to the phenoumenal).

So you've taken a theory that is already less than the "Real" and are theorizing based on it, then trying to slap it back over top of the Real.

It's not going to match up. It can't. It's just a theory and can't contain all the nuances and distinctions of the Real. It will be reflective to some degree, but it's going to have inconsistencies and flaws. Such as the one we are uncovering here.