Signs of Ni

[INTP]

No.

That was a joke.

This next one will be serious.

Yes.

They are better at being worthless.

Ok, that was a joke, too.

Seriously, tho, this next one will be serious.

No.

What you talked earlier about cognitive biases? :-------DDDD

 

[Coriolis]

Another nitpick (getting enough evidence to start pondering on this one now): that was more about Ni/Se and Ne/Si, I think.

I really did mean Ni/Te vs. Ti/Ne; the combined effect of the lead perceiving and lead judging function for each type. My statement might still be wrong - just clarifying my comment.

I seem to be take issue with what the person says, and correct them... that wouldn't, on the surface seem that different from what the INTPs do... ok, but I guess mine are glaringly obvious problems with what the person said, not unnecessary derails getting in the way of furthering productive discussion... I guess that would be the difference... I suppose not all Ti-nitpicking need be this way, either, though... so the issue seems to be that INTPs can nitpick in a Ti way and INTJs can nitpick in Te way . . .

I would like a dollar for every time I have told someone, "what you say is true, but it doesn't matter here/now".

 

[Zarathustra]

What you talked earlier about cognitive biases? :-------DDDD

Really? You're trying to use an obvious joke?

That I immediately followed with:

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]
I'm curious, do you think there is anything that an average INTP can do better than an average INTJ?

Seriously, tho: yes, of course.

I think each type has its relative strengths, and that includes INTPs.

I think plenty of what I've stated in this thread has pointed to that fact.

Although, I suppose comparing my jokes with your serious writing is fitting.

 

[Zarathustra]

Unsurprisingly, made by an INTP. One of the few things INTPs do better than INTJs, right?

I said you guys were good at something!

Edit: Seriously now, you mentioned some relevant stuff about INTPs, but the fact that you only focus on our bad side (and seem to ignore the ones INTJs have) compromises the impartiality and reliability of your points.

First off, I certainly don't ignore the bad side of INTJs. In fact, I talk about the weaknesses of INTJs far more than INTPs. I am constantly talking about Ni/Pi tunnel vision, and also regularly bring up other weaknesses (Ni being unstable compared to Si, Fi subconsciously sneaking into Te, INTJs stuck in negative NiFi loops, et al). That's not what this discussion has evolved into, and, frankly, having studied my own types' weaknesses far more than other types, I'm interested in starting to delve into what comparable issues arise in other types. That's mostly what I'm going for here.

Second, I haven't only talked about your bad side. I thought your cartoon response was hilarious, but go back through my posts -- I've mentioned plenty of things about INTPs that weren't negative during this discussion. Yes, that has been the focus of the discussion, but who cares? What, is that topic not worth being discussed?

Most of Coriolis' and ummlau's comments were neutral and balanced, but you are basically filtering what is bad about the INTP way...

It would be more accurate to say that I'm focusing on problems that can befall INTPs -- that is my aim.

When I aim for something, I do indeed intend on hitting it.

These are not problems for all INTPs -- superior individuals who are INTPs will engage in few, if any, of these behaviors.

...and what is a supposedly supreme perfection about the INTJ way.

This is just false.

You took issue with my original long post about stock market analysis, which was simply meant to demonstrate how NTJ thinking is superior to NTP thinking in that specific field, specifically as a means of illustrating the difference between how Ni/Se and Ne/Si users look at the world, and how this manifests in greater efficacy in different fields. In that very post, I explicitly stated that NTPs' approach made them superior in other fields.

inb4 you regard this post as an Inferior Fe reaction.

Simply mentioning it doesn't make it not true.

 

[Rasofy]

Dunno what to say, I guess your posting style is a bit eccentric. Like, the more controversy it can generate, the better.

Simply mentioning it doesn't make it not true.

 

[Such Irony]

INTJs are always changing the problem space, either by redefining the problem, or understanding that the problem is something else entirely. This goes along with what Uumlau wrote about staying current with changing reality.


This is the crux of the matter. It reminds me of the static vs. dynamic interpretation of Ti/Ne vs. Ni/Te that was discussed a few pages ago. INTJs (or anyone) can see that as a practical matter, reality is a constantly moving target: yesterday it rained, but today is sunny; my computer was fine for months but now won't boot; the boss promised me a raise, but then funding was cut. Solutions must take these changes of condition into account. INTPs on the other hand see a reality encompassing all possibilities at once: it can rain, or be sunny, or even snow or hail; my computer can fail in may other ways; organizational funding is governed by various influences, some of which are predictable.

INTP then might look for an all-encompassing solution that will covere every possibility. The problem is it might require too much time or money, or be too cumbersome ever to be implemented. INTJ will realize that a useful solution need not include all cases. We are contingency planners, so our solutions usually do include some built-in flexibility (we plan a picnic, and specify a rain date), but we probably are not going to cover all the possibilities that the INTP ideal solution will. We will come up with something that can actually be used, though.

In asking whether INTP or INTJ solutions are better, there is a third route: combining them. I work with a number of INTPs, and my SO is one as well. Sometimes it feels as though when we work together well, there is nothing we can't accomplish.

I've been guilty of the bolded countless times. I strive towards making solutions as all-encompassing as possible. Sometimes that affects my productivity and others see me as impratical or unrealistic as a result.

 

[INTP]

Really? You're trying to use an obvious joke?

That I immediately followed with:



Although, I suppose comparing my jokes with your serious writing is fitting.

Easy ed

 

[uumlau]

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.)

 

[Zarathustra]

[delusional backpedaling]

 

[INTP]

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.


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.


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.


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?



Yes, that's a decent summary of how INTPs think.


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.


Reality changes all the time.

Is it raining today?

Will it rain tomorrow?




Your "real" reality is just as abstract, if not more so, than your so-called "perception of reality".



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.)

Based on this reply, its reasonable to assume that you didnt get the point and it seems like your responce only proves my point on the major issues here. I dont really see any point of replying to most of the stuff since with your attitude(which causes quite heavy bias to your perception and thinking), it seems like it would only lead to more misunderstandings for you about what im saying. And no, i dont care to be more specific as it would be just waste of my time.

But about this raining, sunshine reality changing thing. The reality is that when its daytime and there isnt clouds blocking the sun, the sun shines. I cba to explain how rain is formed, but the mechanics on how clouds start pouring enough water for it to drop on the ground is the deeper(non superficial) reality. Its also the reality that on earth, its raining all the time.

If you stand still and wait for the rain to change to sunshine and claim that the reality changed, its just your perspective that changes over time, since its the truth that weather isnt stable over time and that the world turns, whether you move with it or not. Its the mechanics of sunshine/raining that are the deeper truths, and this now it rains and now its not is the superficial layer of reality. Its the same with nearly all the things, superficial realities change, while deeper realities stay stable over time.

Im not saying that INTJs arent able to understand the mechanics of how rain developes etc or see those mechanics as being true. Its just that INTJs orientate themselves more based on these more superficial layers of reality. INTPs tend to look for deeper realities that are constant over time, these are the core issues that INTPs see as being more relevant.
You seem to think that these things exist or not and with many things you talk like INTP has some way of thinking and INTJ has another way and these things somehow exclude each other(other INTJs seem to make the same mistake also). But its that usually INTJ and INTP are both seeing the same thing and even using the same type of methodology, its just that different aspects of same thing are seen as more trusted more often by one type and different aspect is seen as more trusted more often by another type.

 

[INTP]

Ty

 

[Zarathustra]

Based on this reply, its reasonable to assume that you didnt get the point and it seems like your responce only proves my point on the major issues here. I dont really see any point of replying to most of the stuff since with your attitude(which causes quite heavy bias to your perception and thinking), it seems like it would only lead to more misunderstandings for you about what im saying. And no, i dont care to be more specific as it would be just waste of my time.

But about this raining, sunshine reality changing thing. The reality is that when its daytime and there isnt clouds blocking the sun, the sun shines. I cba to explain how rain is formed, but the mechanics on how clouds start pouring enough water for it to drop on the ground is the deeper(non superficial) reality. Its also the reality that on earth, its raining all the time.

If you stand still and wait for the rain to change to sunshine and claim that the reality changed, its just your perspective that changes over time, since its the truth that weather isnt stable over time and that the world turns, whether you move with it or not. Its the mechanics of sunshine/raining that are the deeper truths, and this now it rains and now its not is the superficial layer of reality. Its the same with nearly all the things, superficial realities change, while deeper realities stay stable over time.

Im not saying that INTJs arent able to understand the mechanics of how rain developes etc or see those mechanics as being true. Its just that INTJs orientate themselves more based on these more superficial layers of reality. INTPs tend to look for deeper realities that are constant over time, these are the core issues that INTPs see as being more relevant.
You seem to think that these things exist or not and with many things you talk like INTP has some way of thinking and INTJ has another way and these things somehow exclude each other(other INTJs seem to make the same mistake also). But its that usually INTJ and INTP are both seeing the same thing and even using the same type of methodology, its just that different aspects of same thing are seen as more trusted more often by one type and different aspect is seen as more trusted more often by another type.

All that's being talked about here is the difference between Se ("superficial reality") and Si ("deeper reality") preferences, and you're just demonstrating your preference for Si over Se. Your lack of self-awareness in the way that you do so, though, is hilarious. This was all covered a long time ago, and you're really adding nothing interesting or enlightening here. Thanks for demonstrating what I meant by (unhealthy/immature/lowly developed) INTPs being shitty listeners, though (cardinal INTP sin #3 [ironically, the one related to Si]).

 

[INTP]

All that's being talked about here is the difference between Se ("superficial reality") and Si ("deeper reality") preferences, and you're just demonstrating your preference for Si over Se. Your lack of self-awareness in the way that you do so, though, is hilarious. This was all covered a long time ago, and you're really adding nothing interesting or enlightening here. And per #2/#3, you're showing yourself to be s shitty listener.

I dont really care what people were talking about here earlier, but if you claim that this what i said is about Si/Se, you either dont get what i was saying or dont understand typology basics very well.

 

[Zarathustra]

In the context of this conversation, the preference for the "superficial reality" is Se, and the preference for the "deeper reality" is Si.

If you don't understand why, then you don't understand typology basics very well.

 

[INTP]

In the context of this conversation, the preference for the "superficial reality" is Se, and the preference for the "deeper reality" is Si.

If you don't understand why, then you don't understand typology basics very well.

This isnt about perceiving 'what is' only, its about more complex usage of different functions to judge, perceive and coming to certain conclusions more easily due to putting more weight to different aspects of cognition. Lol..

 

[Zarathustra]

The Cardinal Sins of the INTP:
#1 Nitpicking - Ti (check)
#2 Derailing - Ne
#3 Not listening - Si (check)
#4 Fe-shaming - Fe

2/4 down.

How many you think he'll hit by the end of this discussion?

 

[INTP]

The Cardinal Sins of the INTP:
#1 Nitpicking - Ti (check)
#2 Derailing - Ne
#3 Not listening - Si (check)
#4 Fe-shaming - Fe

2/4 down.

How many you think he'll hit by the end of this conversation?

Only cry cuz crappeur :-------DDDD

 

[Zarathustra]

Only cry cuz crappeur :-------DDDD

Yes, I am familiar with your canned "I don't have anything substantive to say, cuz I'm clearly wrong" responses.

 

[INTP]

Yes, I am familiar with your canned "I don't have anything substantive to say, cuz I'm clearly wrong" responses.

" One may be aware of the perceptions or judgments associated with the inferior function, but these are generally over-ridden by the superior function. Thinking types, for example, do not give their feelings much weight. Sensation types have intuitions, but they are not motivated by them. Similarly, feeling types brush away disturbing thoughts and intuitives ignore what is right in front of them."

So true

 

[Zarathustra]

If that is the depth of your understanding, I see why you're not able to post more intelligently.