• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NTJs: Does this description of NTJ vs. NTP miscommunication make sense to you?

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I found this in The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki and thought it was an incisively accurate description of many of my disagreements with NTJs. (The original referred to INTJs and INTPs, but I find that it applies equally well to their E counterparts so it's slightly edited.)

Enjoy!


The peculiar disconnect that nearly always happens between NTJs and NTPs. From the NTJ's standpoint: "He seems awfully attached to his model, as if it's the only possible one. There are so many possibilities he hasn't ruled out. His argumentation is simply unfair: he is choosing observations to stack the deck to favor his interpretation over all others. He seems oblivious to the complexity of the subject. He does not seem to know what he's doing."

From the NTP's standpoint: "I'm trying to point things out and draw distinctions in order to define a vocabulary that carves out some aspect of the subject matter. That would be forward progress. But he refuses to look. He keeps translating everything I say into some moronic vocabulary that he's already familiar with, where what I'm saying is a trivial goof. He seems completely stuck in his box."



Anyway I believe this was written by an INTP, so I wonder if it only makes sense from the NTP standpoint or if NTJs see any merit in it as well.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I dont think an NTP is as dumb to not know that there are so many possibilities. But that he uses argumentation that is unfair I agree with.

the NTP response is sissy.

If NTP responses need one to point out that noone understands them, I'ld feel like 13 again
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I don't think he was saying that no one understands him; I think he was saying the NTJ refuses to make progress in the discussion by nailing down any definite terms.

I think the NTJ's Ni dislikes doing that because it automatically shuts out certain interpretations and limits perspective, but that the NTP's Ti thinks it's necessary in order to have clearly defined language with which to discuss the issue.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
Your take.

I think to wait for others to anticipate your thought is the way to Babylon for you
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I'm sorry, I suck at psychology stuff
 

Litvyak

No Cigar
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
1,822
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Yes, I seriously hate it when INTPs say something like "define xy". It seems they really REALLY like "defining" things for no apparent reason. Define temperature. Define IQ. Define time. Wtf? It's a debate, not a "let's define obvious things in the most eloquent way"-contest.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I am not sure I experience things in this exact way. It is great to get other people's ideas and perceptions before I decide.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I personally have to say and it's a very personal thing: while general consensus aims to portray the J type as an opinion nazi, who once made up his mind never changes it and if one had looked very carefully over the years on typeC and found out that especially the INTJs are far from being totalitarian:

one may ask himself, whats then left of a difference between Ps and Js ?

I may answer this questions with one clean stroke and its a thing Ps would ever hate to admit: we are insecure; we may love what we want and adore what we love and be the most sensible and imaginative companion you ever had in your life, but we are insecure about ourselves and our impact on the world.

Cause there is Chaos in Engineering, aobsolute Chaos !

And the one who does see that and can phrase his words a way to prevent the p from feeling that most of the times, is not only J but a very wise man, who clearly needs to get laid by me:

my icq: 64019888
 

JustHer

Pumpernickel
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
1,954
MBTI Type
ENTJ
This is very true for me:

He seems oblivious to the complexity of the subject.

That's usually how I feel when I'm arguing with an NTP.

They are SO convinced in the models they create, that the more they try to explain them the more I start seeing all the gray area and uncertainty and the more frustrated I become at the fact that they don't see it and that I can't explain it because it's Ni.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
You're creating stereotypes here, every rational man could overcome in an instant.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
entropie,

I find that INTPs like to give an outward appearance of being flexible (Ne) and are easy to approach and discuss any topic with, but will very rarely change their internal beliefs on anything (Ti.) They'll play devil's advocate and discuss lots of different possibilities just for fun, but won't actually seriously consider changing their beliefs very often.

INTJs are more difficult to approach in the first place and will often refuse to listen to new ideas unless you can show that their current interpretation is ineffective (Te), but if you're able to break through this rigid outer shell then they'll give your ideas the utmost consideration and may completely reinvent their entire perspective on the topic (Ni.)

INTPs are flexible now, rigid later.

INTJs are rigid now, flexible later.



That's usually how I feel when I'm arguing with an NTP.

They are SO convinced in the models they create, that the more they try to explain them the more I start seeing all the gray area and uncertainty and the more frustrated I become at the fact that they don't see it and that I can't explain it because it's Ni.

That's the thing--we aren't convinced that the models we create will completely explain the entirety of reality; we only seek to explain single particular systems and situations at a time. Ti wants to define precise terminology for how to discuss a given system meaningfully, so that we'll know exactly how it operates under a precise set of theoretical conditions.

Ni doesn't like that because once one of those conditions changes, the entire system collapses so there's no point in defining such specific sets of conditions in the first place.

But what I think you NTJs miss about us is that Ne is really good at noticing when those conditions have changed and quickly adapting Ti's standards by writing a new set of rules for every possible situation. We don't actually believe that the model we build for situation x will also apply to every other possible situation--we just have to approach it that way because we don't have Ni there to "feel" its way through everything. We need a rigidly defined internal structure, but it works because Ne is good enough at inventing new approaches that we can just intuit an entirely new rule system in real time, every time conditions change.

Ni asks, "What's the point in that? Why try to precisely define every possible set of conditions in theory, when your definitions don't apply roundly and empirically (Te) across all possible sets of conditions?"

One of us needs internal consistency and the other needs external, and in each case we are balanced by flexibility in the opposite realm. :)
 

sofmarhof

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
327
MBTI Type
INTP
Yes, I seriously hate it when INTPs say something like "define xy". It seems they really REALLY like "defining" things for no apparent reason. Define temperature. Define IQ. Define time. Wtf? It's a debate, not a "let's define obvious things in the most eloquent way"-contest.

Oh, boy. If I hate defining words like these, am I still an INTP? Because there's little I hate more.

Once, I had an art class that began with the definition of a line. The given answer was something like "a visual representation of the path of a one-dinemsional object moving through a two-dimensional space."

Sorry, I'm not sure I know any NTJs. Maybe a professor I had whose class literally made me cry.
 

Two Point Two

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Let's see...

I don't know if it's an NTJ vs. NTP thing, but it does annoy me when people approach some subject by defining things based on their own internal model, with the intention of then using their definitions to categorically answer all relevant questions...without first stopping to see what's real; whether their definition corresponds to anything in reality. And when they then seem incapable of stepping outside their defined framework and taking an alternative set of definitions to see what they get with them.

You say Ne is good at recognising situational change and that Ti can adapt when such is perceived, but what about when you're dealing in a realm that's highly theoretical and supposed to be closer to universal than anything that changes with situational variables?

Thing is, I'm not at all sure it's NTPs I've had this problem with.
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
It's kind of like micro vs. macro economics.

Rather than just looking at them as two separate systems, it's all really one system that feeds into one another. You can understand macro by itself, you can understand micro by itself. How micro feeds into macro and vice versa is what's interesting. In order to do that, you have to look at specific (theoretical) cases.

If you're selling apples, but there's a shortage of them... <--You look at that kind of example, understand the theory behind it (after figuring out and labeling the phenomenon *not required) and go, "Ohhh...okay," and begin to apply that one self-evident theory against other models to see if it stands up.

In other words, it's not the system or theoretical reality that matters, it's the method, or meaning behind it that does matter.

Of course I'm speaking for myself, and my example is a bit arbitrary, but whatever.
 
Top