[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

[redacted]

Yeah, and from what I've read of Lenore Thomson's idea: it seems like complete bullshit.

Try this site.

You can find the rough correlations between their eight "mindframes" and the eight functions of Jung/MBTI here:



There's a lot of information on their site, if you look for it, and you can get all their tests for free (there is the original test, and the "Revelations" test, that have to do with your personal results) -- all you have to do is register with their site.

I like some of those but not all.

Mine would look like this:

Te: works/doesn't work
Ti: true/false
Fe: appropriate/inappropriate
Fi: right/wrong
Ne: inductive leaps (with focus on the environment)
Ni: inductive leaps (with focus on the current internal thought process)
Se: new info (with focus on the environment)
Si: new info (with focus on the current internal thought process)

 

[redacted]

...brain scans have been performed on people of known types, and Ni pretty much entirely correlates with the left-rear portion of the brain.
...
Besides that, it's well known that the corpus collosum is incapable of passing sufficient information to allow two functions on opposite sides of the brain to work together in any direct way at all. With that being the case, it would be very difficult for INTJs to utilize their intuition and thinking together at all meaningfully, assuming that Ni is a right-brained process.

I don't think both parietal lobes work together extremely closely, but nonetheless, they are both responsible for the cognitive processes we label intuition.

 

[Zarathustra]

Te: works/doesn't work
Ti: true/false

I think freeky's descriptions actually work better for these two.

True/False is referring to soundness, which is what Te is concerned with.

Logical/Illogical is referring to validity, which is what Ti is concerned with.

 

[redacted]

I think freeky's descriptions actually work better for these two.

True/False is referring to soundness, which is what Te is concerned with.

Logical/Illogical is referring to validity, which is what Ti is concerned with.

Is there really much of a difference? I don't really care about the wording.

 

[Zarathustra]

Is there really much of a difference? I don't really care about the wording.

There is a very significant difference between soundness and validity.

It's a distinction that every serious thinker should be aware of: Validity and Soundness

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

This left brain/ right brain stuff needs to split into another thread. This is actually a pretty awesome thread but we're WAY off track now.

 

[uumlau]

I wouldn't call almost 100% reliance on empirical data open-minded, even in a different way. INTJ's are open to possibilities, so long as they are founded, in this hardcore sequential manner, i.e — they test ideas according to what they know in a very rigorous fashion. If the ideas don't pass this sequential breakdown, they are more likely to consider it rubbish, if anything. I've seen it happen all the time.

True open-mindedness is ...

True open-mindedness is to fully understand another's thoughts, in the other's context, before applying one's own contexts.

I've often found that those most proud of their own "open-mindedness" are some of the most close-minded people I've ever met. They listen, of course (that's the open-minded part), and then tell you how everything is wrong based on their context, without demonstrating any understanding of your context. Or they pretend to agree in an "open-minded" way, to maintain the peace, but never bother to understand the point, as later conversation reveals.

Reread what you wrote above: it's rather ironically close-minded. A way of thinking that is different from yours is incapable of being open-minded merely because their boundary condition priorities differ from yours?

One of the most useful things that understanding MBTI and Jungian functions helps with is that it points out these differing contexts. The differing contexts mean that the individuals involved actually perceive and evaluate the same information differently. They see different worlds, as it were, even though the worlds are the same. INTJs see possibilities that INTPs usually miss, and vice-versa, precisely because of the soundness vs. validity differences that Z aptly points out.

I will acknowledge that INTJs often sound close-minded to INTPs. That's a difference in communication style. INTJs and INTPs regard different kinds of ideas as "obvious," don't mention them, and end up having fairly furious discussions until the "obvious" ideas are finally spoken and made plain to the other. However, INTPs can sound close-minded to INTJs for a different reason: there is a Ti tendency to resist evaluating ideas as quickly as an INTJ does, and this reluctance to draw a quick conclusion feels like obstinance to the INTJ, who feels like he's talking about one thing, and the INTP just changes the topic to something else.


[CAVEAT: Most people are not open-minded by the criteria I list. Even those who are, only manage to be so via conscious effort, and even then one is not guaranteed success.]

to consider ideas which might not seem applicable at first, and try them anyway, only to discard them once they have shown to be truly useless. To my mind, this seems true of ENTP's and INTP's. We are open to all kinds of left-field possibilities which other people might consider impossible, or implausible. INTJ's seem more limited to truly practical possibilities. In fact, many sites often state that one of the pitfalls of being INTJ is that they usually dismiss ideas before actually understanding them thoroughly, i.e. — before giving them a chance. "Actually try to understand an idea before dismissing it" is one of the ways in which INTJ's can actually grow and mature.

It's not just a flaw of INTJs. Everyone dismisses ideas before actually understanding them thoroughly, to some degree or another. Even an "agreeable" person can just be agreeing for the sake of comity rather than actually accepting the idea in question. It's an INTJ flaw in a couple of respects: INTJs are fairly "extroverted" in their rejection of others' ideas, which tends to result in personal difficulties, but also INTJs are actually endeavoring to understand ideas thoroughly, therefore it's useful to point out to INTJs the kind of intellectually lazy tendencies that result in good ideas being rejected too quickly.

I'm not so sure Ni is more free than Ne (which is where our ideas as INT thinkers inherently arise). And I'm fairly sure that Te is entirely more restrictive and limiting than Ti. Definitional terms (Ti) do not restrict ideas (Ne), in terms of possibilities — they only keep them coherent. Thus, an idea which may be entirely impractical, but which is nonetheless coherent, will seem worth discussing to an INTP. An INTJ, on the other hand, driven by a larger need to sequentially verify ideas (Ni) according to what is empirically known (Te) will only accept what is practical. Thus, an idea which may be slightly incoherent, but which is actually practical, will appeal to an INTJ.

The bolded is untrue. By choosing a set of definitions, you have necessarily limited the possibilities. Consider the possible geometrical axioms for parallel lines: the Euclidean definition stood for years, but it's possible to have parallel lines that diverge or intersect, depending upon the geometry one is dealing with. Note that the actual "geometry" is more of a Te boundary condition than a Ti one: if I'm dealing with flat geometry, I use Euclidean rules; if I'm dealing with spherical geometry, I use a negative curvature geometry; if I'm dealing with hyperbolic geometry, I use a positive curvature geometry. Te-wise, I might do something like measure the angles of a triangle, add them together, and get a number that is much larger than 180 degrees. If I stuck with definitions, I'd just assume I did the measurement wrong. If I stick with my measurements, then some rule in my analysis is wrong. The Ni talent (for Te) is to "dynamically swap out underlying rules" and see which set of rules makes sense in terms of what is observed. This contrasts with the Ne talent of "given a set of rules, determine what new ideas may be discovered."

NiTe and NeTi hold different things to be constant. NiTe holds the facts of the world (as best we know them) to be constant, and tries to figure out the rules underlying those facts. NeTi holds certain definitions and axioms to be constant, and searches out the possibilities of those definitions.

Both INTJ and INTP are extremely flexible thinkers, but start from different ground rules, and look for very different kinds of possibilities based on those ground rules.

These thought processes, Ni+Te and Ne+Ti are complimentary. A fuller understanding is achieved by applying both, than by applying just one or the other.

As for the rest ...

Thus, I see practical/impractical to be more limiting than whether or not an idea is actually entirely coherent, from a purely logical standpoint. And again, Ti never usually stifles an INTP's thoughts. Ideas are bouncing around and Ti is trying to control them, but those ideas will be considered and played with as long as they are coherent, even if they don't actually apply to the real world. Hence, INTP's enjoy thinking in and of itself, and enjoy thoughts even if they may not be practical or applicable. INTP's appreciate beautiful constructs of thought, even if they aren't worth anything in a practical sense. INTJ's only enjoy thinking with a purpose that has clearly defined ends, i.e. — something that will actually be worth the effort and pay off in the end. INTJ's don't like armchair philosophizing as much as INTP's. To me, this is more narrow-minded.



Considering only ideas that are shown to work is not open-minded — it's narrow and limited to what is practical and applicable to the real world. Boundless amounts of possibilities are bubbling around in the world beyond what we may 'think' is workable or practical. ENTP's and INTP's show this often. We're more open to what may be beyond current comprehension. Hence, INTJ's are limited to what 'seems' practical in the current, according to what we know scientifically. NTP's may look beyond our current understanding when seeking possibilities, and this difference is crucial. Thus, INTJ's might be open-minded, to an extent, but nowhere nearly as open as ENTP's and INTP's. They seem to have a natural epistemological barrier upon which they tend to rely. They don't enjoy going beyond empirical boundaries. So no, INTJ's aren't open-minded in the way INTP's are, and I wouldn't really call their sense of possibilities "open," per se. You're really reaching here.

And the notion that Te appears ruthless at times is the tip of the iceberg — it's often entirely tyrannical and brutish.

... can you not see that it is merely moral posturing? That you aren't actually describing anything other than your own subjective biases?

INTJs enjoy "just thinking in and of itself" as much as INTPs do. We also have "beautiful constructs of thought." It just a different style of thinking, with different ground rules, and different areas of flexibility. INTJs have plenty of ideas that have no applicability in the real world: we just tend not to talk about those. We shift context at will, and have fun exploring the consequences of the rules changes that such shifts entail. You know how INTJs have this reputation for having contingency plans always at hand? We thought about it beforehand - not in a "planning" sense, but in a "what if" sense, where most of our "what ifs" are entirely unrealistic.

I once took a wonderful class called "Great Books", which had a format of reading a book, and then discussing it. It was rather formal, in that the first step was to read the book (or set of chapters) in order to discuss what the author was actually saying. One was not allowed to discuss the merits of the author's ideas, but only to debate about whether he meant X or Y or Z. After a week or so of reading and discussing what the author said and meant, only then was the class allowed to debate the merits of the author's ideas for a session.

The class forced us to read the author in context. By the end of the week, there would largely be agreement on what the author said and meant, so the final discussion on whether the ideas have merit was fruitful and productive.

Oftentimes, in real life and online, there is a tendency to jump to the "whether the ideas have merit" stage, without evaluating the ideas in context. You accuse INTJs of doing so, but your writing style indicates that you do so, too, because you don't understand INTJs in the "INTJ context." You see what they look like to you, in terms of your perspective, but you really haven't wrapped your mind around Ni and Te and how they work together, and how Ni+Te sees things that Ne+Ti does not.

Understanding both is quite doable: INTJs and INTPs both are quite capable of understanding how the other thinks, and are able in a limited fashion to actually process things in terms of the other's context. All it takes is effort.

 

[MacGuffin]

However, INTPs can sound close-minded to INTJs for a different reason: there is a Ti tendency to resist evaluating ideas as quickly as an INTJ does, and this reluctance to draw a quick conclusion feels like obstinance to the INTJ, who feels like he's talking about one thing, and the INTP just changes the topic to something else.

Reluctance to draw quick conclusions is close-minded... what?

I once took a wonderful class called "Great Books", which had a format of reading a book, and then discussing it. It was rather formal, in that the first step was to read the book (or set of chapters) in order to discuss what the author was actually saying. One was not allowed to discuss the merits of the author's ideas, but only to debate about whether he meant X or Y or Z. After a week or so of reading and discussing what the author said and meant, only then was the class allowed to debate the merits of the author's ideas for a session.

The class forced us to read the author in context. By the end of the week, there would largely be agreement on what the author said and meant, so the final discussion on whether the ideas have merit was fruitful and productive.

Oh god, even when there isn't a box to think outside of, the INTJ will create one anyway.

 

[uumlau]

Reluctance to draw quick conclusions is close-minded... what?

You do know how to read in context, yes?

I'm saying that it appears to be, not that it is.

INTJs are looking for a particular kind of back and forth evaluation of an idea that is of a very different style than INTP. The INTP tends to instinctively reject this kind of evaluation, which sounds like a reluctance to participate in a "real discussion" from the INTJ's point of view. INTPs can make similar, reciprocal complaints, but are just as mistaken about the the "close-mindedness."

Oh god, even when there isn't a box to think outside of, the INTJ will create one anyway.

Do you believe that the formalized discussion is the created box? Or is it the author's context that is the box? Or is it that agreement on the author's context is the box?

Perhaps the only box is the one you have created in your own mind, to superimpose upon my point.

 

[MacGuffin]

It's ALL boxes.

 

[uumlau]

It's ALL boxes.

Exactly! They are all boxes.

In a way, your quip about INTJ's creating boxes is quite correct. In every particular instance under discussion, there is a "box", a context. The way INTJs typically speak and communicate, it sounds like they're in a particular box and incapable of venturing much beyond it.

Underneath, though, the INTJ Ni is creating and swapping and moving boxes all over the place. Others won't notice this for a while, until something is said in a completely new context that couldn't possibly contain the ideas that were being discussed just a moment ago. While Ne is rather extroverted about being outside the box, pointing at that box over there and showing how one isn't inside it; Ni is introverted about it, bending mental space and time such that the old box has been sent to a conceptual elsewhere, and a new one has appeared in its place.

Thus for Ni, "outside the box" is "just another box."

But it's never just a single box.

 

[Salomé]

But there isn't anything new in the OP, these are the mechanics of the system. Just because I re-worded it to help people understand it doesn't mean I changed anything or injected theories of my own. I'm not trying to reinvent anything here, I'm just trying to help people understand what has already been described.

Yeah. Seemed pretty straightforward and non-contentious to me.

I've found the communication gap between INTJ and INTP to be one of the best ways for an INTx to figure out which of the two types fits. A lot of the material that describes INTJs often describes someone who is rather fastidious and organized (because of the TJ), when most INTJs aren't like that at all. In fact, even very organized INTJs will "feel disorganized" because they aren't "organized enough." So even though the INTJ description mostly fits, the INTP seems to objectively fit better.

Similarly, not all INTPs are as vague and absentminded and laid back as the typical descriptions suggest. In fact, INTPs can be very precise and fastidious about how ideas are expressed, nitpicking minor definitions, and they seem anything other than "laid back" when they do so.

I believe that it is possible in terms of skills and training for a single person to both have prominent Te and Ti judging, depending on the material before them. Ti is where you figure it out for yourself, delving into the logic, not entirely trusting anothers' representation of the material to be entirely correct. Ti is your internalized logical understanding of a system/issue/problem. Te's focus is different: one's own understanding is still present, but it is voluntarily put to the test. It is compared to reality, compared to others' opinions/views/understandings, and it is actively searching for better ideas. Anyone who has had to work in a strongly technical field has had to develop both of these perspectives, or otherwise be crippled. If you don't develop your own understanding, you end up with a lot of confirmation bias and garbage-in-garbage-out spewing of bogus information. If you don't develop the ability to juggle ideas and perspectives other than your own, and honestly evaluate them, you won't be able to work smoothly with a technical team. If you are a competent member of a technical team, you might be better at one aspect than the other, but you do both: you have to.

This makes it even more difficult to determine whether one is INTP or INTJ, because, well, you actually do have aspects of both, and it can be difficult to tell which one you lean on more readily.

Now to the communication gap between these perspectives, where the function you lean on becomes more clear.

The absolute best way to tell whether you're an INTJ or an INTP is to get into discussions with other INTJs and INTPs and see where the discusions go.

The INTJ discussions will often be boring, even if you're both INTJs. The idea is communicated, there's nothing else to do, and the conversation is over. Once in a while, there's an interesting insight to be shared, someone says, "wow, cool," and the conversation is over. This attitude actually lends itself to the work world, where there is a job to be done, and spending hours just talking is problematic.

The INTP discussions will go all over the place, due to Ne. Whenever one gets bored with the current topic (and often, even when one isn't bored with the topic), a new tangential topic becomes the centerpiece of the conversation for a while. Ideas are usually not resolved, though they might be defined, and inconsistencies are pointed out.

Get an INTJ talking with an INTP, and generally, things go well. There's a lot in common, and even INTJs enjoy shooting the breeze about technical topics for a while, and INTPs enjoy many of the insights than INTJs have that they didn't think of themselves.

However, once they disagree, the communication gap appears. What happens is that there is some particular problem or issue, and the INTJ and INTP both attempt to solve it. The problem is that the priorities that define a real solution are very different.

The INTJ approach is, "Find the one or two things that need to be resolved, fix those, and be done." Ni plays a huge role for the INTJ in this respect: a huge amount of experience with past problems is compared with the current problem, in an almost supercomputer kind of way, and like magic, Ni throws up a few possible solutions. Te then sorts through these possibilities, throws out obviously bad ones, and then tests the ones the survive. What is left is "the correct solution." The INTJ will then implement the solution.

The INTP approach is to understand the problem. Rather than using Ni, the INTP uses Ti to achieve this personal understanding, while using Ne to brainstorm for possibilities the conclusions of Ti clash with reality. This Ti/Ne combination is very good at finding potential problems that might be caused by any particular choice made to fix the issue at hand.

Now, when the INTJ and INTP work together on the issue, these approaches will often clash. The INTJ is working to resolve things promptly, using Ni as a shortcut to achieve rapid understanding of the issue. The INTJ is fully capable of using Ti to analyze it in far more depth, but has abandoned this approach in favor of expediency. The INTP is working for a full understanding.

The INTJ figures things out (or so he thinks), and then informs the INTP of the solution. The INTP uses Ti and Ne and quickly intuitively feels some apparent inconsistencies and logical contradictions in the INTJ solution. Given a bit more time, a lot of the contradictions/problems are verbalized.

At this point, the INTJ does the same thing with the INTP's contradictions as he did with the original issue, resolving each one of those. It's actually a pretty good team-up, and the INTP brings up a lot of relevant and important points, which the INTJ quickly resolves. And then the INTP, still developing one's own personal understanding, doesn't stop.

From the INTJ's perspective, the INTP points start sounding more like technical nitpicks, arbitrarily specific definitions, or entirely tangential observations. Most of the better INTP points the INTJ often classes as valid, but that the gain achieved by implementing the INTP idea is not worth the cost of implementing it.

From the INTP's perspective, the INTJ is thinking sloppy, not considering all of the angles, willing to arbitrarily accept systemic flaws just to get the job done (badly), and in general not really trying to understand what is going on.

So, if you're still wondering whether you're INTJ or INTP, figure out which side of this kind of argument you end up on. Do other people seem disinclined to REALLY look into a problem/issue and just slap on a patch? Or do you find that you already have a solution to the problem, and feel held back by having to explain that solution to everyone else, over and over again, until they understand it?

I'll end it here. There's more details to be had, mostly along the lines of how INTJ and INTP end up talking in circles around each other, because each has a different priority and a different definition of what a good solution is.

This was a good analysis. I never understand INTJs and this is perhaps why.
I think I have developed Te because I have needed to, as you suggest. I can do the pareto thing - I've learned to curb my perfectionist impulses so as to use my time more efficiently (when I have to) - but I still experience great frustration with the "quick fix" mentality. I find it impossible not to understand the deeper issues and consequences of short-termism. It's like neon (Ne-on, ) signs flash before my eyes. But most decision-makers in business (Js) aren't interested in those. As long as they hit their stupid deadlines they're happy.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

Do you even realize that your posts basically contained little more than typological bias, and that all you're doing is complaining that NTJs see your "idea playtime" as trivial frivolity not worthy of their time (since they're more concerned with finding actual truths, not just playing around with ideas regardless of their [lack of] soundness), and then labeling the NTJ perspective as "close-mindedness".

First of all, how was any of it typologically biased? Most of it seems pretty accurate to many INTJ's I've met.

Second, of course INTJ's see the act of playing around with ideas as a trivial waste of time, as they are ultimately concerned with finding very pragmatic truths. I made it pretty clear in my posts that I'm aware of this. I know exactly why an INTJ doesn't like playing around with ideas, I was just explaining the differences between the types. In fact, I wrote the following in one of my posts:

INTJ's only enjoy thinking with a purpose that has clearly defined ends, i.e. — something that will actually be worth the effort and pay off in the end.

As for close-mindedness, I would say this isn't a great choice of wording. Of course INTJ's aren't generally closed off to possibilities, like some philistine, but an INTJ will seem to narrow down a selection of possibilities to only those which are truly practical and worthy of serious discussion (based on very strict and rigorous standards, which may be incorrect sometimes), whereas an NTP will play around with ideas in a very unrestricted manner. In this way (as I've explained, and I guess you're too lazy to read), INTJ's seem more narrow in their approach to ideas and possibilities, in comparison to NTP's.

From what I know, an NTP will follow an interesting idea until it has truly proven not to work after 1,000 attempts. Edison was like this. An idea will be tried and tried and tried until it truly doesn't work, and then it'll be abandoned. An INTJ seems more likely to test an idea according to what they know about the world (Te), and if the idea doesn't stand up after a surface level scanning, it'll be abandoned and discarded as impractical. This may lead to a lot less wasted time, but it may also lead to missed possibilities. In that sense, I consider it "more narrow." But then again, perhaps NTP's are "too broad." In either case, it just goes to show the differences in how NTP's and NTJ's think.

Furthermore, you seem to spend much time devoted to discussing the linearity of Te, but very little time devoted to the fact that Ti is an extremely linear function itself (probably the most so), while seemingly failing to acknowledge the fact that Ne seems unable to stay focused on a single subject, while Ni possesses a phenomenal ability to do so (realize that this ability to focus serves as an aid to linearity, but is not linearity in and of itself). The difference between Te and Ti is not in their linearity (although, even by most Ti-users' accounts, Ti is the more linear of the two [Ti-users are often complaining that Te-users use "sloppy logic" and make "inconsistent logical jumps"]), but that Te cares about soundness (i.e., representational and/or pragmatic truth, which is why it aims to verify Ni's intuitions via empirical observation and testing), while Ti cares about validity (i.e., internally consistent truth, based on whatever principles, regardless of their representational veracity, have been posited for a particular thought experiment). And, to be quite honest, validity is just a cheap form of soundness, lacking the requisite possession of actual truth; so all you're really saying is that NTJs care about finding actual truth, while NTPs don't. So, riddle me this: why should any of us care about your long-winded whining? Boo fucking hoo.

Interesting, because the following seems to contradict your inane babbling:

"As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear [contra Extraverted Thinking]. It's body-based and holistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically."

"Introverted Thinking is a right-brain form of judgement that makes us aware of a situation's many variables. When we use it, we recognize our power, as individuals, to exploit some variables at the expense of others."

"This kind of awareness is not only impersonal: it's graphic, immediate, and holistic."

"The right brain, with its all-at-once approach to life, doesn't require exact predictability before it takes action. Its decisions are based on probabilities, and it leaves room for the random and the unexpected."

Additionally, read the following from AJ @ personalityjunkie.com:

INTJ vs INTP

While both INTPs and INTJs are concerned with the rationality of a given argument, INTJs tend to be less speculative and more careful with their arguments than INTPs. INTPs, who are typically more right-brained than INTJs, are more holistic and “all-at-once” in their approach to truth. Therefore, an argument that is rationally sound and “rings true” to the INTP may be deemed sufficient. INTJs, in contrast, tend to be more cautious and analytical in their appraisals. Whereas the INTP may be satisfied with catching the drift an argument, INTJs attend more closely to the way it is stated and whether or not it is empirically-grounded. INTJs are more concerned with the individual components of the argument, including their arrangement in a linear and logical sequence so that a reasonable conclusion can be drawn. In the strictest sense, INTJs are more logical, analytical, and factual than INTPs.

Since INTJs are often masters of logic and language, with vigilant attention to the manner in which things are articulated, they can represent a source of frustration for all types, even INTPs. INTPs enjoy making intuitive leaps from one subject to the next and are adept at formulating connections among even the most disparate topics. As a result, a given INTP might come to believe he has arrived at an important new theory of the universe following an hour’s work with a pen and a sketch pad. INTJs, through often possessing strong powers of intuition, funnel things more carefully through the left side of the brain. Consequently, they often display little patience or interest in an INTP’s random musings, demanding the INTP employ more specifics and linearity in his or her argument. This can be quite difficult and frustrating for INTPs, who may consider INTJ overly nitpicky and fussy. While some INTJs may exercise their questioning as a means of frustrating or embarrassing their interlocutors, in the majority of instances, they are merely requesting information that their logical apparatus demands for conducting a viable evaluation of any argument.

Though INTPs may see themselves as “system thinkers,” this is much more accurately applied to the thinking of INTJs. For INTPs, the outlines of information tends to get blurred in their minds, intermixing in a way that emphasizes the unity of the whole over the identity of the parts. INTJs are also able to see the whole, but are also adept at preserving the identity and distinct relationships between the parts. Granted, the INTJ’s “big picture” may not be as all-encompassing or grandiose as that of the INTP, but this is often because their careful minds do not grant them the freedom to move at the same speed and to cover as much ground as is true of their perceiving counterparts.

So, what? Ti is more linear than Te??? WTF?

Also, I never failed to realize that Ne can't stay focused, while Ni can be more focused. It's pretty evident in my posts. Ne bounces around all over the place, while Ni keeps a more steady track, allowing Te more room to come in and clean things up, whereas Ne is wild as hell. This is obvious! And yes, Ti does care about validity, whereas Te cares about pragmatic, empirically grounded, truths that will work. Te is much more about being linear, sequential, systematic, and organized — all left-brain associated aspects of thinking. So all in all, you said a multitude of things about INTJ's and INTP's that I already knew, much of which I've already explained in my posts, in one form or another.

AND, I have been frustrated with INTJ's. That much is obvious. Yet, that doesn't make my posts useless. Much of what I said is true to the differences between INTJ's and INTP's, even if I felt like ranting and venting a little about INTJ's in the process (which isn't surprising, considering it seems normal that INTJ's will tend to want to harass and 'embarrass' INTP's, who they may consider quite annoying). I only speak truth. lol

*insert cocky, intelligent smile*

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

I'd like to read up on this, because this is very different from what Lenore Thompson wrote, and from all the studies I've seen on it. Can you point me to a particular source?

Indeed, Lenore Thompson said the complete opposite to what Zara is asserting.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

There is a very significant difference between soundness and validity.

It's a distinction that every serious thinker should be aware of: Validity and Soundness

Validity is whether or not inferences are valid.
In other words, if the premises actually 'follow.'

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This argument is 'valid,' because even if the premises aren't accurate, it still remains true that point 1 actually lead to point 2, which does render point 3. Thus, the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion (so long as the premises are true).

Soundness is whether or not the conclusion is actually true, in additional to whether or not the premises actually flow, inferentially, from one another. In other words, the premises must be true in order for an argument to be 'sound.'

Thus, the following:

1. All humans have two arms.
2. Jerry only has one arm.
3. Therefore, Jerry isn't human.

In this example, the premise "all humans have two arms" is false, because some humans are amputees. Therefore, the rest of the argument, even if the premises inferentially lead from one to another, guaranteeing the truth, is not sound, because the conclusion isn't true, as one of the premises isn't accurate.

It's pretty simple, after a while.

 

[Little Linguist]

Damn, someone grab some popcorn. This is better than a movie.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

True open-mindedness is to fully understand another's thoughts, in the other's context, before applying one's own contexts.

If the manner in which I've explained an INTJ's seeming thought processes from what can be inferred isn't accurate, then I'd love someone to point that out. So far, no one has, nullifying your point.

I've often found that those most proud of their own "open-mindedness" are some of the most close-minded people I've ever met. They listen, of course (that's the open-minded part), and then tell you how everything is wrong based on their context, without demonstrating any understanding of your context. Or they pretend to agree in an "open-minded" way, to maintain the peace, but never bother to understand the point, as later conversation reveals.

It's not pride. It's honest awareness. NTP's are open to possibilities in a very broad manner, rendering the NTJ's openness to possibilities more narrow. It's not that hard to understand, there's no need to get defensive and psychoanalytical about it, and there's no need to make a giant fuss. Again, I only speak what I see as truthful. To my mind, INTJ's are less broad in their awareness of possibilities. This doesn't make them inferior; it's just something I've noticed, jeez.

Reread what you wrote above: it's rather ironically close-minded. A way of thinking that is different from yours is incapable of being open-minded merely because their boundary condition priorities differ from yours?

No. That's a horrible strawman. In fact, can't you read? You've entirely misconstrued my point. (BUTCHERED seems more appropriate.) I'm not saying INTJ's are close-minded in that they aren't open to possibilities. Again, it's a technical distinction, not some petty derogatory statement (as many of you seem to be taking it). INTJ's aren't as broad in their awareness of possibilities; they like to narrow selections down to what will work, based on what they know of the world. An NTP is very broad about possibilities (Ne) and will follow ideas all over the place, whether they will work or not. Hence, if INTJ's are "narrow-minded," then NTP's can be seen as "broad-minded." And both descriptions, even if true, can be taken wrongly. Yet, it's true. Some of us are less open to possibilities; some of us are too open to many possibilities that may not work. And this is just how we are. Hence, if I point out that an INTJ tends to be more narrow in their outlook, I'm not saying that INTP's are completely perfect in our outlook. INTP's, in general, are much too broad and speculative, and don't make enough empirical distinctions. I just don't enjoy an INTJ's approach.

Therefore, even if I personally dislike the INTJ's approach, inherently more comfortable with the INTP's approach, it doesn't make it untrue to observe that INTJ's tend to be more narrow and less broad in their approach.

One of the most useful things that understanding MBTI and Jungian functions helps with is that it points out these differing contexts. The differing contexts mean that the individuals involved actually perceive and evaluate the same information differently. They see different worlds, as it were, even though the worlds are the same. INTJs see possibilities that INTPs usually miss, and vice-versa, precisely because of the soundness vs. validity differences that Z aptly points out.

Perhaps. But more often, an INTP will play around with ideas, whereas an INTJ will likely overlook many that may have proven useful, narrowing their scope to what is pragmatic, logical, and sound. Thus, the contexts are irrelevant. Of course the different types are distinct from one another, but that doesn't make it wrong to observe those differences, unless of course stupid people want to outright assume that when someone is stating these observations honestly, that they are pointing out the flaws of other types as if their own type is entirely flawless, because that's ridiculous.

Therefore, get it through your skulls, because I don't want to have to respond to another misunderstood post like this: I'm not criticizing INTJ's from a point of view which assumes that they are somehow entirely flawed, whereas INTP's are perfect. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally prefer my own nature, and this will show when I'm speaking, but that doesn't mean I objectively and intellectually believe that it's ALWAYS better to think like an INTP, because that's nonsense. I attempt to retain objective validity when I am expressing my mind, without entirely mixing up my own thoughts on the matter. Although, I suppose it's difficult for you guys to discern what's just personal from what's objectively valid.

Thus, I will say this: I think it's pretty objectively valid that INTJ's are more narrow in their view of possibilities. In fact, Zara already admitted that INTJ's don't like wasting time on petty ideas and speculation as often as INTP's. INTJ's want to work on ideas which are worth the time, in the end. By limiting one's self to what seems to work, possibilities are left out that may be practical. [In other words, INTJ's seem to construct artificial parameters (a box) upon which they will test and compare every idea they come across, thereby ultimately judging possibilities according to their more narrow, limited, and constructed sense of what will work or not, which can be erroneously construed altogether, and this ultimate trust in their constructed box can sometimes be wrong.] And just the same, not much of practical use generally comes from an INTP's imaginative play with ideas (although, as Einstein has shown, it can sometimes lead to powerful new insights). Thus, I think this distinction is objectively valid, and if it isn't, I'd love to read something which opposes it (as I have not yet). And on top of this objective distinction, I simply add that I just don't enjoy the INTJ's approach. It's not better or worse than an INTP's approach: both have pros and cons. I just don't enjoy the INTJ approach is all.

I will acknowledge that INTJs often sound close-minded to INTPs. That's a difference in communication style. INTJs and INTPs regard different kinds of ideas as "obvious," don't mention them, and end up having fairly furious discussions until the "obvious" ideas are finally spoken and made plain to the other. However, INTPs can sound close-minded to INTJs for a different reason: there is a Ti tendency to resist evaluating ideas as quickly as an INTJ does, and this reluctance to draw a quick conclusion feels like obstinance to the INTJ, who feels like he's talking about one thing, and the INTP just changes the topic to something else.

Perhaps. From what I've noticed, an INTJ and INTP will start discussing a topic with enthusiasm and interest. Eventually, a disagreement will occur. After this point, the INTP will usually resort to Ti evaluation and possibly Ne fantasy play (in a very speculative manner), coupled no doubt with what they may know of the topic. An INTJ, on other hand, will resort to every fact they know of the topic and a well-thought-out set of arguments to point out why they are right and why the other person is in error. INTJ's argue hard, with lots of support. As it tends to happen, an INTJ may confidently and self-assuredly assert that their point is more cogent and persuasive, feeling secure that the INTP may not have quickly dealt with the argument in a very persuasive manner. The INTP, if this happens, will realize that the INTJ has prematurely evaluated the discussion and is just jumping to conclusions about his/her own arguments. After enough thought, the INTP may point out many flaws in the INTJ's reasoning, after the fact. The INTJ will usually respond to these new points with even more points (many of which may again be riddled with errors, not well thought out, but which seemingly seem logical on the surface).

And then, as I've experienced, the INTP will feel pushed into a corner, while the INTJ will feel that the INTP hasn't argued anything of substance. In this way, INTJ's seem very pushy, overly assertive, and narrow in their approach. In fact, they often have a cocky "I know I'm right, and you're definitely wrong" attitude that I find very annoying. From what I've read, INTJ's are known to be stubborn and confident in their abilities. When they think they're right, they'll make it known. Thus, INTJ's seem too serious and narrow in their approach to truth, from what I've noticed. Rather than truly seeking understanding on an issue, it seems they've already figured it out years ago and will usually discuss a topic as an expert: telling you what is and what isn't, rather than actually using creative thinking to revisit the topic from an open-minded, curious point of view. INTP's, as I've noticed, engage every discussion from a playful, enthusiastic point of view, full of curiosity and wonder, ready to possibly learn something new, or gain some new insight from it. Hence, a more laid-back and loose style that seems so open to new discussions and learning.

Therefore, I usually find the INTJ discussions to be taxing, while INTP discussions are very enjoyable. If an INTJ has a discussion with someone, it's essentially a back and forth transfer of knowledge: "Here's what I know, this is what I've found to be true. Oh, really? Well, here's what I know and what I found to be true. Cool. Where did you read that? In this cool new textbook I bought. Oh, really, wow? Neat." To me, this is boring, to just transfer knowledge on topics. An INTP conversation is more a transfer of ideas and thoughts about ideas: "Here's what I read the other day, and it got me to thinking about a few different things. So, I wonder if humans can really do X, Y, Z. What do you think? Well, I've thought about this before, and here's what I think: humans can do A, B, C. Oh, really? Sounds interesting, but I'm not so sure humans can actually do A, B, and C. It seems more valid that they'd do X, Y, Z. Let's analyze this further."

And on and on an INTP discussion will go, as the two people bounce ideas back and forth from one another in a very playful, open-minded, free sort of way, completely tolerant of each other's personal opinions, knowing full well that there's going to be a difference of opinion which should be embraced and dealt with in a very friendly, impersonal manner. INTJ's seem to want to take a discussion serious and prove the other person wrong completely, based on what they already know of the situation. Thus, it becomes a deathmatch, with an INTJ. Your ideas either survive, or they don't. With an INTP, it's like a friendly fencing duel. No one gets hurt, but perhaps someone learns a thing or two from the interaction. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Uytuun]

Exactly! They are all boxes.

Thus for Ni, "outside the box" is "just another box."

But it's never just a single box.

I feel most at ease in the conceptual space in which boxes are swapped. Which is where the possibilities are at for INTJs I think. I think we have bendy minds.

 

[Tallulah]

I once took a wonderful class called "Great Books", which had a format of reading a book, and then discussing it. It was rather formal, in that the first step was to read the book (or set of chapters) in order to discuss what the author was actually saying. One was not allowed to discuss the merits of the author's ideas, but only to debate about whether he meant X or Y or Z. After a week or so of reading and discussing what the author said and meant, only then was the class allowed to debate the merits of the author's ideas for a session.

The class forced us to read the author in context. By the end of the week, there would largely be agreement on what the author said and meant, so the final discussion on whether the ideas have merit was fruitful and productive.

Oftentimes, in real life and online, there is a tendency to jump to the "whether the ideas have merit" stage, without evaluating the ideas in context. You accuse INTJs of doing so, but your writing style indicates that you do so, too, because you don't understand INTJs in the "INTJ context." You see what they look like to you, in terms of your perspective, but you really haven't wrapped your mind around Ni and Te and how they work together, and how Ni+Te sees things that Ne+Ti does not.

Understanding both is quite doable: INTJs and INTPs both are quite capable of understanding how the other thinks, and are able in a limited fashion to actually process things in terms of the other's context. All it takes is effort.

Are you talking about literature/fiction or a book of philosophical writings? How in the world can there be agreement on what the author intended, though? And what is the point of trying to figure out what the author intended, when literature truly is all about interpretation? Sure, there are underlying themes that can be obvious, but there are a million ways to interpret a work of fiction, and all can be valid, given that the interpreter can use passages as support for their interpretation.

That sounds an awful lot like "finding a solution" to a book rather than enjoying it for what it is, and allowing for personal interpretation. I bet many people in that class felt intellectually stifled by those rules. And some others were probably grateful they didn't have to actually think on their own, because they'd be given the "correct" answers if they'd just wait.

Sometimes finding a solution and having closure isn't the most desirable thing.

 

[uumlau]

If the manner in which I've explained an INTJ's seeming thought processes from what can be inferred isn't accurate, then I'd love someone to point that out. So far, no one has, nullifying your point.

I pointed it out in several ways. The rest is up to you.

It's not pride. It's honest awareness. NTP's are open to possibilities in a very broad manner, rendering the NTJ's openness to possibilities more narrow. It's not that hard to understand, there's no need to get defensive and psychoanalytical about it, and there's no need to make a giant fuss.

It's when lazy thinking masquerades as "honest awareness" that one should be concerned. Your depiction of INTJ thought is "not so hard to understand" because it's wrong. I described INTJ thought in detail.

Again, I only speak what I see as truthful. To my mind, INTJ's are less broad in their awareness of possibilities. This doesn't make them inferior; it's just something I've noticed, jeez.

I appreciate that it's your honest opinion, but you are expressing it as fact, not opinion. ... Waitaminute, are you sure you aren't INTJ?!

No. That's a horrible strawman. In fact, can't you read? You've entirely misconstrued my point. (BUTCHERED seems more appropriate.) I'm not saying INTJ's are close-minded in that they aren't open to possibilities. Again, it's a technical distinction, not some petty derogatory statement (as many of you seem to be taking it). INTJ's aren't as broad in their awareness of possibilities; they like to narrow selections down to what will work, based on what they know of the world. An NTP is very broad about possibilities (Ne) and will follow ideas all over the place, whether they will work or not. Hence, if INTJ's are "narrow-minded," then NTP's can be seen as "broad-minded." And both descriptions, even if true, can be taken wrongly. Yet, it's true. Some of us are less open to possibilities; some of us are too open to many possibilities that may not work. And this is just how we are. Hence, if I point out that an INTJ tends to be more narrow in their outlook, I'm not saying that INTP's are completely perfect in our outlook. INTP's, in general, are much too broad and speculative, and don't make enough empirical distinctions. I just don't enjoy an INTJ's approach.

You entirely miss my point that INTJs are open to possibilities that INTPs don't see, and vice-versa. Note that saying "open minded" or "broad minded" have specific connotations whose antitheses are less than flattering. If you mean some sort of "technical" definition of "narrow minded" to simply mean "Ni is more focused than Ne", well, yes, Ni is more focused than Ne, but that rather tautological remark is belied by your bellyaching about INTJs in general.

It's perfectly OK to say you don't enjoy the INTJ approach to matters, but you go much further than that, even if you don't realize it.

...

Perhaps. But more often, an INTP will play around with ideas, whereas an INTJ will likely overlook many that may have proven useful, narrowing their scope to what is pragmatic, logical, and sound. Thus, the contexts are irrelevant. Of course the different types are distinct from one another, but that doesn't make it wrong to observe those differences, unless of course stupid people want to outright assume that when someone is stating these observations honestly, that they are pointing out the flaws of other types as if their own type is entirely flawless, because that's ridiculous.

The contexts are everything. If you don't understand how a thought is framed, you do not understand the thought. When two people happen to frame thoughts in the same way, when they share a context, it's easy to play with ideas as you do with other INTPs.

Human language is inherently limited. It is nigh impossible to state an idea completely, with all its implications. Instead, we rely upon shared contexts to communicate ideas reliably. A significant aspect of humor is the shifting of the context, so that something that makes perfect serious sense in one context because entertainingly hilarious in another. Such humor actually helps us to keep track of our mutual contexts.

Therefore, get it through your skulls, because I don't want to have to respond to another misunderstood post like this: I'm not criticizing INTJ's from a point of view which assumes that they are somehow entirely flawed, whereas INTP's are perfect. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally prefer my own nature, and this will show when I'm speaking, but that doesn't mean I objectively and intellectually believe that it's ALWAYS better to think like an INTP, because that's nonsense. I attempt to retain objective validity when I am expressing my mind, without entirely mixing up my own thoughts on the matter. Although, I suppose it's difficult for you guys to discern what's just personal from what's objectively valid.

The bolded belies your claim that you are not criticizing INTJs.

...

Therefore, I usually find the INTJ discussions to be taxing, while INTP discussions are very enjoyable.

This is not unusual. Depending upon the nature of the topic, INTJs often feel the same when discussing INTPs. Note my first post in this thread from back in October.

If an INTJ has a discussion with someone, it's essentially a back and forth transfer of knowledge: "Here's what I know, this is what I've found to be true. Oh, really? Well, here's what I know and what I found to be true. Cool. Where did you read that? In this cool new textbook I bought. Oh, really, wow? Neat." To me, this is boring, to just transfer knowledge on topics.

If you figure out the issue I've described to you (and you dismissed from the get-go!) about context, it won't seem like that. The INTJ language is just different. I find playful banter of ideas and speculations to be highly entertaining, and I do so with Ne doms as easily as Ni doms. It just takes a bit of effort to get over the Ne/Ni and Te/Ti bridges.

An INTP conversation is more a transfer of ideas and thoughts about ideas: "Here's what I read the other day, and it got me to thinking about a few different things. So, I wonder if humans can really do X, Y, Z. What do you think? Well, I've thought about this before, and here's what I think: humans can do A, B, C. Oh, really? Sounds interesting, but I'm not so sure humans can actually do A, B, and C. It seems more valid that they'd do X, Y, Z. Let's analyze this further."

And on and on an INTP discussion will go, as the two people bounce ideas back and forth from one another in a very playful, open-minded, free sort of way, completely tolerant of each other's personal opinions, knowing full well that there's going to be a difference of opinion which should be embraced and dealt with in a very friendly, impersonal manner. INTJ's seem to want to take a discussion serious and prove the other person wrong completely, based on what they already know of the situation. Thus, it becomes a deathmatch, with an INTJ. Your ideas either survive, or they don't. With an INTP, it's like a friendly fencing duel. No one gets hurt, but perhaps someone learns a thing or two from the interaction. At least, that's how I see it.

And INTJ discussion can often do the same thing, but it swaps out the boxes that contain the ideas, and plays with the boxes, as opposed to playing with the contents in the box.

Where "INTJs seem to want to take a discussion serious" is a matter of language. INTPs generally fall back on more speculative modes of speech, rather than make positive assertions. The pattern is to let the ideas gently grow as they bounce back and forth. INTJs will instead make positive assertions to each other in a discussion, each pointing out the flaws in the other ideas more forcefully than INTPs tend to. Each INTJ Te-style statement is intended to be evaluated and criticized by the other in a direct sort of way. It can definitely seem unfriendly if you're not used to it, or haven't had any close INTJ friends to realize that the more forceful INTJ style is just as friendly as the INTP style.