INTJ vs INTP

[Salomé]

Though much of the comparison has merit, Dawkins is INTJ, so it's misapplied. "The God Delusion" is a polemical rant, as are all of his anti-religious programmes. I couldn't get all the way through it, it was so toxic. They're both batshit crazy, but Hitchins is funnier.

Quoted with my own edit. Should you wish, I can go over your past posts and explain to you why I said what I did. Having seen you around the forum, I have developed a perception of you that strongly suggests you err on the side of "fuck these idiots" more often than you put forth the effort to seek clarity. It is true, though, that I cannot know what your true intentions are. Perhaps you respond in those ways to evoke in someone a strong defense of his/her argument, in your own way acquiring clarification. However, my guess is that you don't really care to know my reasons; I'm offering them up as a courtesy nonetheless.

Do you really think anything about that post is courteous? I'm wondering if you just struggle to understand courtesy, or whether, as others suspect, you're simply a troll.
You're slightly more subtle than most though. Probably because you're more needy when it comes to approval. You lurch between being solicitous and totally objectionable. It's slightly dizzying. You remind me of Gingko, in that respect. Same self-righteous preachiness too...
I wonder what makes you think my internal dialogue is any business of yours? Do you really expect me to explain myself to you? Do you really expect me to be interested in the details of your failure to read my character? How curious! I think I've already shown exceptional tolerance and patience when it comes to you, don't push it.

If you genuinely believe my attitude is one of "fuck these idiots", one has to wonder why you haven't put me on ignore (rather than the other way around) instead of repeatedly calling me into your threads. I mean, what could you possibly hope to gain from such a person, other than a giant "Fuck You!" ? Is that what you want? To be scolded? Some people are freaky that way... Perhaps you think attacking me will improve your standing in some way? Perhaps you think you'll provoke me into some infraction? You clearly want some kind of reaction. But you'll have to spell it out. Unlike you, I don't enjoy playing guessing games about people's motivations.

Alternatively, might I suggest you focus more on the content of a discussion and less on your speculations about me. I think it would improve the quality of your posts considerably. It would certainly make you less ignorable.

 

[Jonny]

Do you really think anything about that post is courteous? I'm wondering if you just struggle to understand courtesy, or whether, as others suspect, you're simply a troll.
You're slightly more subtle than most though. Probably because you're more needy when it comes to approval. You lurch between being solicitous and totally objectionable. It's slightly dizzying. You remind me of Gingko, in that respect. Same self-righteous preachiness too...
I wonder what makes you think my internal dialogue is any business of yours? Do you really expect me to explain myself to you? Do you really expect me to be interested in the details of your failure to read my character? How curious! I think I've already shown exceptional tolerance and patience when it comes to you, don't push it.

If you genuinely believe my attitude is one of "fuck these idiots", one has to wonder why you haven't put me on ignore (rather than the other way around) instead of repeatedly calling me into your threads. I mean, what could you possibly hope to gain from such a person, other than a giant "Fuck You!" ? Is that what you want? To be scolded? Some people are freaky that way... Perhaps you think attacking me will improve your standing in some way? Perhaps you think you'll provoke me into some infraction? You clearly want some kind of reaction. But you'll have to spell it out. Unlike you, I don't enjoy playing guessing games about people's motivations.

Alternatively, might I suggest you focus more on the content of a discussion and less on your speculations about me. I think it would improve the quality of your posts considerably. It would certainly make you less ignorable.

I assure you, by offering to provide my reasons for perceiving you the way that I do, I was being courteous. To the extent that a person cares about how others perceive her, she might wish, from time to time, to receive feedback with supporting evidence. This goes beyond a concern with image though, since our words and style have a profound influence on whether others are receptive to what we say, and to what extent we affect their lives. Those effects can be as small as putting someone in a poor mood for a time, or as large as opening them up to life changing information/experiences.

I don’t know how I can convince you that I’m not a troll. I understand that some of my ideas are offensive on the surface, but I really try hard to explain my point of view and why I believe what I do. There are many complex ideas that underlie any one of the many beliefs I have (about child support, privacy rights, torture, vegetarianism, etc.), and it can be hard to present a clear idea of any one belief without getting into lots of details that a person might or might not be interested in. I say this to you now, as I’ve said before, I am not a troll. If this means you label me as incompetent or ignorant of proper courtesy, then I’m not sure what else I can do at this point.

What does it mean for your internal dialogue to be “a business of mine”? I am interested in it because the way you approach people is unique, and I suppose I don’t have a good sense of why you say some of the things that you do. You are well read, well spoken, but very harsh. You have interesting things to say.

I didn’t mean your general attitude was “fuck these idiots,” but when you are met with disagreement that seems to be where you go much of the time. I invited you into this thread because, when I did a search of INTJs and INTPs with large post counts, your name was one of many. I invited you into my thread about dating an illiterate girl because it related to your many threads on gender roles and I wanted your take. I respond to many of your threads because the topics are interesting.

I don’t want a reaction from you. If you were banned from the forum I would be one of the people fighting for your reinstatement, as I’ve done with many others. I want to learn from you, and I believe that ultimately your intentions are good, even if the mods don’t always see it that way. For me, learning from someone is aided by learning about her as well. Context.

As for putting anyone on ignore, I don’t see the point. What good would come of it?

 

[Rad3k]

Saying INTPs are more concise than INTJs I'm unsure of at the moment. There are many elements to conciseness and it's just very hard to say that one type is, as a whole, more concise than the other (on average). For instance, INTPs can really logically boil something down into its very roots and most basic elements. They are more equipped to do this than an INTJ. However, because of their need to be precise they may explain something in a very complicated manner just to be as precise as possible. And because they're good at seeing satellite possibilities, they may go off on tangents to account for them.

This is consistent with my experience. I really hate to oversimplify things - when I'm trying to explain something complex in its nature, I tend to give all meaningful information about it (while keeping redundancy as low as possible), and it sometimes results in more confusion than understanding on the part of the listener. Other times, when explaining something not that complex (in my judgement), I give as little information as necessary to fully describe it, and leave it for listeners to figure out the implications. In my experience that works well with technical and scientific kinds of people, and bad with most others.
[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION]
Regardless of what is happening in your head, I can tell you how it looks from the outside: Your posts often seem arrogant and impolite towards others, without provocation. Why is that?

 

[RaptorWizard]

[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION]
Regardless of what is happening in your head, I can tell you how it looks from the outside: Your posts often seem arrogant and impolite towards others, without provocation. Why is that?

I was just wondering the same exact thing. Good thing this isn't a universal INTP trait!

Anyway, a lot of the INTPs on this site (other types included) have had some very dumb posts, not just posts to be funny, but kind of like what you described above.

I'm glad you are here to represent the INTPs, because without people like you who actually make good and/or intelligent posts (like in the God philosophy thread or in the God Omnipotence thread), they would be doomed to a lonely life of self-supremacy, without the affections of others, not that you need to agree with everybody (I actually encourage others into challenges), but you shouldn't act like a dog (one already got scolded here twice)!

 

[greenfairy]

[MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION]
Regardless of what is happening in your head, I can tell you how it looks from the outside: Your posts often seem arrogant and impolite towards others, without provocation. Why is that?

I was just wondering the same exact thing. Good thing this isn't a universal INTP trait!

Maybe she's an IXFP.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Hitchens is more liekly to be a P than Dawkins.

Dawkins is almost the stereotype of xNTJ.

Hitchens is either INTJ or ENTP.

 

[greenfairy]

They (INTP and INTJ) can both be tertiary-loop INFJ's in disguise...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmbQr3hxdbw&list=UUj4zr9ssPd4xQPGRKEldtow&index=17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfylUjBZfvA
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=7016


If the descriptions of the two books are true, I think they are consistent with and indicative of the types. Have either of the two of them been asked what they think their types are?

 

[greenfairy]

Who's more stupid, the stupid one or the one who thinks he's smart enough to label others as stupid?

I believe that those who feel the need to call others stupid/illogical/irrational are insecure. It's projection of the shadow self onto another person, for the purpose of destroying it.

And here is a wise Epicurean saying: In a joint philosophical investigation he who is defeated comes out ahead in so far as he has learned something new.

If you constantly call others stupid and illogical, then you discount their point of view. If yours ever fails, you have little else to turn to. If you never acknowledge defeat, you never learn.

I've been criticized in all sorts of ways on this forum, and I've learned a lot from it.

 

[Edgar]

This has got to be one of the most accurate and lucid descriptions of the differences between INTJs and INTPs that I've ever seen.

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] [MENTION=5143]Salomé[/MENTION] [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] [MENTION=10251]Red Herring[/MENTION] [MENTION=921]lowtech redneck[/MENTION] [MENTION=325]EffEmDoubleyou[/MENTION] [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] [MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION] [MENTION=294]The Ü[/MENTION] [MENTION=6723]phobik[/MENTION] [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] [MENTION=4131]SmileyMan[/MENTION]

Thoughts?

Look at this fucking guy - didn't even bother including me on the list.
So much for INTPs "externally based emotions."

 

[Coriolis]

Dawkins is almost the stereotype of xNTJ.

Hitchens is either INTJ or ENTP.

Hitchens seems more NFJ to me. I agree about Dawkins.

I believe that those who feel the need to call others stupid/illogical/irrational are insecure. It's projection of the shadow self onto another person, for the purpose of destroying it.

People who do this are lazy. They are unwilling to take the time to point out just what is stupid, illogical, or irrational about what the other person has said, so they just slap an unsupported label on it. It would be better for them just to say they disagree, but can't be bothered to elaborate.

Look at this fucking guy - didn't even bother including me on the list.
So much for INTPs "externally based emotions."

I wasn't included either, but sometimes it is preferable to be under the radar.

 

[Jonny]

Look at this fucking guy - didn't even bother including me on the list.
So much for INTPs "externally based emotions."

Oh man, how could I have missed you?

I literally just took the names of the top INTJ and INTP posters from the Members List, and added a few more who I knew were INTP / INTJ (but who didn't have it spelled out in their profile). I don't understand how I could have missed you... /shrug

I wasn't included either, but sometimes it is preferable to be under the radar.

WTF? Now I'm concerned that I had a mini stroke when I was looking at the INTJ list.

 

[Coriolis]

WTF? Now I'm concerned that I had a mini stroke when I was looking at the INTJ list.

My username cloaking subroutine was that effective? *marks experiment as a success*

 

[greenfairy]

One more difference: Though both are like robots, INTJ's are hard and metallic on the outside and soft and cuddly on the inside, while INTP's look personable and human on the outside and inside are made of cold, calculating titanium.

*Ok, done with unsolicited thoughts now: will check out video in OP.

Edit: Pretty good. I like new information. Makes me identify more with Ni, Ti, and Fe.

 

[Coriolis]

One more difference: Though both are like robots, INTJ's are hard and metallic on the outside and soft and cuddly on the inside, while INTP's look personable and human on the outside and inside are made of cold, calculating titanium.

You are attempting to debunk your type's own theory? Or is it just personal wishful thinking?

Warm fuzzy teddybear theory

This is a theory devised by some INFJs on the "warm fuzzy teddybear" feel that surrounds some of the introverted intuitives. This is how others see the INs:

INFJ - cold on outside, warm and fuzzy on the inside
INFP - warm and fuzzy inside and out
INTP - warm on the outside, hard as a rock inside
INTJ - cold and hard inside and out

 

[greenfairy]

You are attempting to debunk your type's own theory? Or is it just personal wishful thinking?

No, I assembled it from the "Which is more robotic" thread. It makes sense to me. If you disagree, that's fine. And how would I be debunking it?

I think it really only applies to INT's. I'd have to modify it for the INF's, since they're not robotic. Oh, and I wouldn't go so far as to call any NT warm or fuzzy enough to be a teddy bear. More like human vs. machine.

 

[Coriolis]

No, I assembled it from the "Which is more robotic" thread. It makes sense to me. If you disagree, that's fine. And how would I be debunking it?

I think it really only applies to INT's. I'd have to modify it for the INF's, since they're not robotic. Oh, and I wouldn't go so far as to call any NT warm or fuzzy enough to be a teddy bear. More like human vs. machine.

Your assessment agrees with this supposedly INFJ-generated theory in regard to INTP, but not INTJ. Many see the expectation of anything warm and cuddly inside INTJs as wishful thinking. The "warm and fuzzy" designation, however, is reserved for NFs.

INFJ - cold on outside, warm and fuzzy on the inside
INFP - warm and fuzzy inside and out
INTP - warm on the outside, hard as a rock inside
INTJ - cold and hard inside and out

In any case, my comment was meant as a joke.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Okay then. I've gotten around to this. These days I don't attempt much typological analysis as I've become rather disenchanted with it, but I'll put my two cents in.

I think his description of INTJs as being more narrow and focused and INTPs as more broad and unfocused is very accurate. It's the most accurate part of this.

In my experience INTPs do seem to be less tough-minded than INTJs, but I'm not sure I can get on board with his explanation. This is due to my own personal battle the the MBTI theory about the third and fourth processes. I never liked them as I always felt they restricted the number of possible permutations without any really good inferred explanation for why.

Some questions popped into my head during the video.

INTPs are more likely to seek information only when it is needed, but what when is information considered needed? It's open-ended enough that I'm not sure how to work with that one.

How different is it to have a perception that is an idealized delusion and to make weak judgments on too little information? Externally, I suspect these two mistakes would often look the same.

This last thing is probably going to sound like I'm just dissing INTJs, but I was quite skeptical of this one. Are INTJs really more empirical? To me it seems like ENTJs and ISTJs are more empirical than INTPs, but INTJs are even less empirical. This is not without possible explanation either. Te should be more empirical than Ti, yes, but perhaps the fact that the INTJ relies more on the powers of Ni (which I dare say is the least empirical process possible) mitigates that advantaged of Te (whereas an ENTJ's leading Te is largely allowed to do its thing) in actual day to day performance.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Okay then. I've gotten around to this. These days I don't attempt much typological analysis as I've become rather disenchanted with it, but I'll put my two cents in.

I think his description of INTJs as being more narrow and focused and INTPs as more broad and unfocused is very accurate. It's the most accurate part of this.

In my experience INTPs do seem to be less tough-minded than INTJs, but I'm not sure I can get on board with his explanation. This is due to my own personal battle the the MBTI theory about the third and fourth processes. I never liked them as I always felt they restricted the number of possible permutations without any really good inferred explanation for why.

Some questions popped into my head during the video.

INTPs are more likely to seek information only when it is needed, but what when is information considered needed? It's open-ended enough that I'm not sure how to work with that one.

How different is it to have a perception that is an idealized delusion and to make weak judgments on too little information? Externally, I suspect these two mistakes would often look the same.

This last thing is probably going to sound like I'm just dissing INTJs, but I was quite skeptical of this one. Are INTJs really more empirical? To me it seems like ENTJs and ISTJs are more empirical than INTPs, but INTJs are even less empirical. This is not without possible explanation either. Te should be more empirical than Ti, yes, but perhaps the fact that the INTJ relies more on the powers of Ni (which I dare say is the least empirical process possible) mitigates that advantaged of Te (whereas an ENTJ's leading Te is largely allowed to do its thing) in actual day to day performance.

I don't particularly disagree with the content, but the wording of this last paragraph amused me, as if 'empirical' was a great and desired virtue.

 

[Salomé]

I assure you, by offering to provide my reasons for perceiving you the way that I do, I was being courteous. To the extent that a person cares about how others perceive her, she might wish, from time to time, to receive feedback with supporting evidence. This goes beyond a concern with image though, since our words and style have a profound influence on whether others are receptive to what we say, and to what extent we affect their lives. Those effects can be as small as putting someone in a poor mood for a time, or as large as opening them up to life changing information/experiences.

There's your problem right there.
When I want feedback, I ask for it. You'll find unsolicited feedback is seldom appreciated. The opinion of most people is a matter of indifference to me. You might think that's arrogant, I could care less. There are people who appreciate my sense of humour and direct style, and people who don't get me at all. Can't please everyone. Don't wanna.
I'm not arrogant enough to suppose I have a "profound influence" on anyone. Nor am I interested in influencing /affecting anyone. The thought of that makes me shudder. If being disagreeable makes me less likely to influence others, that's an argument for being disagreeable. /INTP

I don’t know how I can convince you that I’m not a troll.

It's very simple, just stop trolling me.
I'll accept your explanation / apology for now. A more cynical person might suppose that you turned the discussion onto me to provoke the usual pile-on by other weak-minded types. Which, true to form, is what happens. When you insult someone, there are, unfortunately, some rather pathetic characters who lack the courage to stand alone but nevertheless like to grind their axe in public, chomping at the bit to stick the knife in.

It's one of the most contemptible things about human nature.
So, I guess if you ever pull a stunt like this again, we'll both know exactly where we stand.

What does it mean for your internal dialogue to be “a business of mine”?

This derail started with your "impersonation" of my internal dialogue. A complete misrepresentation of me, and in fact, just a reflection of your own insecurities. I'm frankly, sick and tired of being penalised for other people's insecurities and inferiority complexes.

the way you approach people is unique, and I suppose I don’t have a good sense of why you say some of the things that you do. You are well read, well spoken, but very harsh. You have interesting things to say.

I don’t want a reaction from you. If you were banned from the forum I would be one of the people fighting for your reinstatement, as I’ve done with many others. I want to learn from you, and I believe that ultimately your intentions are good, even if the mods don’t always see it that way. For me, learning from someone is aided by learning about her as well. Context.

As for putting anyone on ignore, I don’t see the point. What good would come of it?

I guess you will have to take the rough with the smooth then. I am harsh. But I am fair.

It seems to me that you are asking something of me and offering in return nothing but premature judgement, insults and public lecturing. Seem like a fair exchange to you?

If you genuinely want to get to know someone/what they're thinking, there are better ways to go about it.

but you shouldn't act like a dog

Whereas acting like a deranged lizard is just the ticket, I suppose?

The hypocrisy and self-delusion exhibited in this thread is truly astounding.

In case you were wondering, it's not ok to insult someone because of something someone else IMAGINED they were thinking to themselves. I mean, it would be funny if it wasn't such a PITA derail. How do people manage to justify their double-standards to themselves?
Case in point:

I believe that those who feel the need to call others stupid/illogical/irrational are insecure. It's projection of the shadow self onto another person, for the purpose of destroying it.

And in the next breath:

INTP's look personable and human on the outside and inside are made of cold, calculating titanium.

So calling people irrational is unconscionable (bad Jung!), but calling them callous and inhuman, well, that's just helpful feedback.

If I had a heart, and/or thought the greenfairy ever knew what it was talking about, I might take offence at that.
As it is...

 

[Salomé]

Though much of the comparison (between INTP and INTJ) has merit, Dawkins is INTJ, so it's misapplied. "The God Delusion" is a polemical rant, as are all of his anti-religious programmes. I couldn't get all the way through it, it was so toxic. They're both batshit crazy, but Hitchins is funnier.

A better comparison would be Alain de Botton (almost certainly an INTP) who wrote Religion for Atheists. He explains his "kinder, gentler" (wittier) view here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html