[NT] INTP vs. INTJ regarding the search for evidence

[Neobick]

Not relevant

 

[Jonny]

I have not examined enough INTPs or INTJs to have any degree of certainty discussing their differences in such a specific way. I will, however, add a bit of information about myself to provide further data.

Firstly, I am not accustomed to searching for evidence to prove something for which I haven't already had quite a bit of evidence in the first place. I believe this stems from a need not to come to conclusions, but to learn. I find it sufficient to study something, without having the agenda of closure, and thus do not have any conclusions to prove until I have become so familiar with something so as to have those conclusions become almost perfectly transparent. On occasion there are ideas for which I do not have adequate evidence, and typically I will begin to look at things from several different venues to focus in on the underlying qualities; however, it doesn't really matter to me that I gather enough evidence to prove something absolutely, only that I prove it sufficiently for myself.

On those occasions when conclusions are not reached from personal observation, but are presented to me through communication (e.g. someone tells me something s/he believes to be truth, from observations s/he has made), and the conclusions presented conflict with my own conceptions, I tend to respond in a rather linear format: I will begin by presenting my understanding, based upon the information available. If this information changes his/her opinion, there is usually no more need for discussion about the matter. If it does not, I ask questions to pinpoint the reasons behind the difference of opinion. If through these questions our understanding of the matter becomes singular, then there is no more need for discussion. If it does not, I concede for lack of knowledge, and depending on interest will either study the issue myself or do nothing more with the subject. Again, I am not in the habit of coming to a conclusion first and then finding evidence for it later.

On those rare occasions when I must absolutely prove or disprove something, usually in an academic setting, I approach the issue systematically and with no attachment to either side. Of course I will have a hunch that leads me to test some things before others, and of course for brevity's sake I want those hunches to be proven true, but apart from an annoyance that I have to spend more time on something, I do not have any emotional need to have my hunches be correct.

I hope this helps.

 

[INTPness]

I have not examined enough INTPs or INTJs to have any degree of certainty discussing their differences in such a specific way. I will, however, add a bit of information about myself to provide further data.

Firstly, I am not accustomed to searching for evidence to prove something for which I haven't already had quite a bit of evidence in the first place. I believe this stems from a need not to come to conclusions, but to learn. I find it sufficient to study something, without having the agenda of closure, and thus do not have any conclusions to prove until I have become so familiar with something so as to have those conclusions become almost perfectly transparent. On occasion there are ideas for which I do not have adequate evidence, and typically I will begin to look at things from several different venues to focus in on the underlying qualities; however, it doesn't really matter to me that I gather enough evidence to prove something absolutely, only that I prove it sufficiently for myself.

On those occasions when conclusions are not reached from personal observation, but are presented to me through communication (e.g. someone tells me something s/he believes to be truth, from observations s/he has made), and the conclusions presented conflict with my own conceptions, I tend to respond in a rather linear format: I will begin by presenting my understanding, based upon the information available. If this information changes his/her opinion, there is usually no more need for discussion about the matter. If it does not, I ask questions to pinpoint the reasons behind the difference of opinion. If through these questions our understanding of the matter becomes singular, then there is no more need for discussion. If it does not, I concede for lack of knowledge, and depending on interest will either study the issue myself or do nothing more with the subject. Again, I am not in the habit of coming to a conclusion first and then finding evidence for it later.

On those rare occasions when I must absolutely prove or disprove something, usually in an academic setting, I approach the issue systematically and with no attachment to either side. Of course I will have a hunch that leads me to test some things before others, and of course for brevity's sake I want those hunches to be proven true, but apart from an annoyance that I have to spend more time on something, I do not have any emotional need to have my hunches be correct.

I hope this helps.

I relate to this quite a bit. Especially the bolded part about studying something without having an agenda for closure. I love to learn and I can obtain a lot of knowledge on a subject and still not have a definite opinion one way or the other. In other words, I will see good points on both sides and tend to think, "the truth is somewhere in the middle", but I'm not taking a definite stance. I just want to understand it for what it is.

 

[uumlau]

"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain

In other words, "Don't mud-wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, too, and the pig enjoys it."

I think this is intended to reflect the kind of attitude the theoretical (<- this is a very important distinction IMO) INTJ and INTP when it comes to learning about an object of interest. I don't think uumlau intends to define what either party is necessarily interested in investigating; I don't think he/she intends to indicate/imply any limitations about either party's "research methods" either.

Bottom line is: I think uumlau's parallel was a reasonably good one, when it comes to describing how your average INTJ or INTP usually approaches an idea/object of interest.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, the kind of approach.

I think it is a poor example because of the depth of understanding needed in each case.

A capable 9-yr old can figure out how to use a watch, while dissecting the mechanics, physics, and inner dimensions of a watch is a much more difficult course of study.

As such, I think it's a rather poor analogy; substitute something like quantum mechanics, and the difference between INTJs wanting to figure out how to apply it, and INTPs just wanting to figure it out, well, yes, then the analogy is suitable; but a watch? Not so much.

I'm not impressed with your reasoning, here. I necessarily chose a simple object so as to make the analogy clear. The more complicated the topic, the more one gets lost in the explanation and the less likely the analogy is going to be clear. Even as it was, the analogy wasn't as clear as it could be, but I needed some degree of intricacy while keeping it simple enough that readers wouldn't get lost. I do note, however, that as much as you disliked the analogy, you immediately got the point the "is" vs "does" difference, which is all I needed it to do. Any analogy breaks if you take it too far.

Personally, I think you're getting a bit stuck on which is smarter or better or whatever.

Hence, my critique, in which I said that the key difference really seems to be that INTJs seem to be interested in learning things only if they (might) fit into their larger vision, while INTPs seem to be interested in learning things solely for the sake of learning.

I don't think this describes the INTJ vs INTP difference well at all. It's sort of true, but it's not good enough that an INTx could read it and suddenly realize, "Oh, I'm really an INTJ!" (Or INTP.) More academically-oriented INTJs will be perceived as the latter (and might even perceive themselves as such), while INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics). That's why I was looking more at process than particular goals.

The INTJ process is to think in terms of uses and functionality: this is how Murray Gell-Mann figured out quarks. He knew that the results of particle collisions had to be explained by an underlying structure/process, and used group theory to figure out what kind of underlying functionality could cause the results as seen. There was no way to logically prove his quark guess: he had to infer what was "really going on" behind the scenes. We know the quark model is true because it predicted new particles. In the end, we still don't know what quarks "really are," we just know that the math works based on what we see. This is the exact same kind of thinking that I was describing that "any 9-year old" could do with a watch. But now, anyone reading this is getting lost in the explanation of quarks.

The INTP process is more concerned that everything known fits in with everything else. Quarks, for example, don't really fit in because it's kind of like making up a fairy tale to explain science: in fact, Gell-Mann was afraid to publish until his theory actually made some predictions. Einstein, on the other hand, took a lot of knowledge that was already out there, and put it together just slightly differently and more self-consistently. Lorenz had already figured out the time/space weirdness, the speed of light was already regarded as a universal constant, and the scientific community had studied electromagnetism extensively by the time Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper. What was Einstein's essential contribution? He showed that it could all still fit together and make sense even if you dropped the "luminiferous ether" from the explanation of electromagnetic theory. Everything else he ever wrote on the subject of relativity, including general relativity, derived from the core postulates of the constant speed of light and that physics needed to work the same in any frame of reference. Quantum mechanics never "fit in" insofar as his worldview was concerned: he was sure that something else was going on that only looked random.

Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding. At least, this is where the talents lie, and how the thinking process of each works in general: both are capable of following the others' path for a while, but feels like "more work" to both of them, thus the tendency to stick to one's core talents.

 

[skylights]

well. perhaps this isn't a particularly profound thought, but i've got a pair of INTPs in the close family and know a couple INTJs, and the difference generally seems like --

NTJ - show me data / result (proof of)
NTP - explain how that makes sense (proof why)

i tend to see T synthesis the way i see F synthesis... naturally, Js are better at leading the way, while Ps are best essentially left to their own devices to explore. Js are more stable in pursuit of a goal but Ps are better at troubleshooting when things are going wrong. Js help Ps be more focused and Ps help Js expand.

edit, @strike - per uumlau's mention - was attributing that to P because it's true that NFPs are generally better troubleshooters than NFJs, but probably Te is better at troubleshooting. in balance, i think INTPs have the upper hand at maintaining an up-to-date detailed mental "database" of information. i would go to an INTJ for an itinerary, but i would go to an INTP for all the background info i need to know.

like...

INTJ
|
|
|
v

pointed major conclusion answering need
lacks logical context (ie, how it fits in to the big scheme of how/why the world works)

INTP
<----------->
______<----------->
___<----------->
________<----------->

lots of minor conclusions establishing logical context
lacks direction/usefulness

together

||||||||||
||||||
|||||
|||||
|||
|
v
optimized result
fits answer into relative context

INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics).

this is true for FPs as well. i think the difference is in how we exclude that information - i think Te and Fe tend to reject ideas as not useful - maybe it will become useful later; maybe it won't - but when Fi and Ti exclude, it's because they've discounted the data set on the grounds of evaluative or logical approval. it's a more forceful, permanent rejection. more annoyingly hard to change, lol.

anyway. possibly not as analytical as the INT reasoning, but i thought it'd be valuable to add a fairly neutral opinion on things

 

[INTPness]

I don't think this describes the INTJ vs INTP difference well at all. It's sort of true, but it's not good enough that an INTx could read it and suddenly realize, "Oh, I'm really an INTJ!" (Or INTP.) More academically-oriented INTJs will be perceived as the latter (and might even perceive themselves as such), while INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics). That's why I was looking more at process than particular goals.

The INTJ process is to think in terms of uses and functionality: this is how Murray Gell-Mann figured out quarks. He knew that the results of particle collisions had to be explained by an underlying structure/process, and used group theory to figure out what kind of underlying functionality could cause the results as seen. There was no way to logically prove his quark guess: he had to infer what was "really going on" behind the scenes. We know the quark model is true because it predicted new particles. In the end, we still don't know what quarks "really are," we just know that the math works based on what we see. This is the exact same kind of thinking that I was describing that "any 9-year old" could do with a watch. But now, anyone reading this is getting lost in the explanation of quarks.

The INTP process is more concerned that everything known fits in with everything else. Quarks, for example, don't really fit in because it's kind of like making up a fairy tale to explain science: in fact, Gell-Mann was afraid to publish until his theory actually made some predictions. Einstein, on the other hand, took a lot of knowledge that was already out there, and put it together just slightly differently and more self-consistently. Lorenz had already figured out the time/space weirdness, the speed of light was already regarded as a universal constant, and the scientific community had studied electromagnetism extensively by the time Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper. What was Einstein's essential contribution? He showed that it could all still fit together and make sense even if you dropped the "luminiferous ether" from the explanation of electromagnetic theory. Everything else he ever wrote on the subject of relativity, including general relativity, derived from the core postulates of the constant speed of light and that physics needed to work the same in any frame of reference. Quantum mechanics never "fit in" insofar as his worldview was concerned: he was sure that something else was going on that only looked random.

Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding. At least, this is where the talents lie, and how the thinking process of each works in general: both are capable of following the others' path for a while, but feels like "more work" to both of them, thus the tendency to stick to one's core talents.

Thank you, first and foremost, for being unbiased in your analysis. That's so important in order for other NT's to take your posts even somewhat seriously.

 

[ZPowers]

Perhaps you need to get a little less sensitive, and just recognize a question for a question, and a statement for a statement.

You likely have something here. Perhaps, if you were so offended but accurate by off-hand response to your clearly patronizing post (a response which was not a direct insult, but an observation-based bit of advice that happened to be true), you should do the same.

Anyways, I'm sure we'll come out of this fine. In fact, if you recall, you were one of the first members I came across here on the forum. You specifically made a point, in lieu of nothing, to point out in my profile then signature (a quote from a movie I enjoy called Network) was "douchey". You told me about how ill-informed I/it was in that condescending-bordering-on-insulting way. I think I replied with some level of umbrage. But we both got over it pretty fast (I mostly remember as the first time I had received any kind of notification on the site. I was kind of disappointed it was just so someone could call me a fool, though I believe as a result you also became the first person to send me a friend request thing, so I guess it was fine)

So, I imagine we can all just move on to more important matters.

 

[INTPness]

So, I imagine we can all just move on to more important matters.

I'm going to say "doubtful", but we'll see. *crosses fingers*

 

[Zarathustra]

...to your clearly patronizing post...

Please go back and reread what I wrote to you, in light of my assuring you right now that it was not meant to be a patronizing post.

Just read it as a post in which I ask you whether you're addressing me specifically, and in which I'm confused by your dichotomy.

Just so you know, I originally just asked whether you were addressing me, but you didn't respond for almost an hour.

I spent some time during that hour trying to figure out why you would make the construction that you did.

I eventually added my comment about the two options you offered because I was confused by why you would make that construction.

I even edited it earlier today (see strikethrough) to make the intended tone more evident -- I genuinely believe you're (mis)reading something into it.

I'm going to say "doubtful", but we'll see. *crosses fingers*

Your incessant passive-aggressiveness doesn't increase those chances.

What are you so butt-hurt about? That I called your earlier post a misconception?

I've never said a single negative thing pointed in your direction.

I wish Neobick had kept his response from last night.

 

[INTPness]

Your incessant passive-aggressiveness doesn't increase those chances.

What are you so butt-hurt about? That I called your earlier post a misconception?

I've never said a single negative thing pointed in your direction.

I wish Neobick had kept his response from last night.

No, I'm not butt-hurt at all. Not in the slightest. It's just so clear to everyone how much you favor INTJ's in your posts. It makes nobody want to listen. I'd love to listen to what you have to say, I just can't because every post is steaming with an odor of "INTJ > INTP". Part of being logical is being unbiased in your observations.

And I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just stating what multiple people are observing. Take it or leave it.

 

[ZPowers]

Okay, request declined. I'll not derail this conversation any longer.

EDIT: Or not. I think my misunderstanding is as good a way to put a cap on that as any.

 

[Coriolis]

Yeah, we're usually not trying to set the agenda for others. It's hard enough staying on our own agenda, let alone managing the agenda of 5 or 10 others. The approach that NTP's take to leadership is usually: I'm going to show you how to do it properly and/or make sure you get the right training. After that, you're expected to make it happen. Make yourself competent. When we are in a new position, we only expect people to give us "basic training" and then we want freedom and space to figure out the rest - to operate fairly autonomously. And so we kind of expect the same from others when they work for us.

NTP's have a very "hands-off" approach to managing others. We expect you to pick up your own slack and to function at a very high level. Sometimes it's good cuz people who like to work independently enjoy that freedom and total lack of micromanagement. Other times it's bad (really bad) cuz people come to us for guidance/leadership and we're like, "Why are you asking me? I have stuff to do. Figure it out!" And yeah, we're really bad with deadlines. If I don't keep a list, I forget stuff.

My advisor was quite like this, and as Zarathustra observed, he wasn't a great manager. He was, however, an outstanding scientist and a truly honorable man, which is more than I can say for some of the faculty at my university. It was a real pleasure working with him, and we still stay in touch though he is retired now and I have been working professionally for awhile. My SO is INTP also, so I have had lots of experience with the pluses and minuses of this type relative to an INTJ.

 

[Salomé]

INxJ INTx pissing contest.

FYP. (And pissed on it a bit )

I like uumlau's take.

Let's say an INTP and an INTJ are studying a wrist watch. Let's even allow them to have multiple copies so that they can take it apart or otherwise experiment and they can still get a working watch at the end of the process.

The INTP will go in, analyze the circuitry, research electrical engineering, wafer chip design, etc., and come away with a complete logical understanding of the mechanisms of the watch and how it all works together to keep track of the time.

The INTJ will go in and try to figure out how the watch works. He'll push buttons, set the time, program alarms, all with a mind to understanding the watch's functionality, what it means when it says a particular time, and what it's useful for. He might even expose it to temperature extremes to see whether it changes the rate of timekeeping compared to a control watch, or see how resistant the watch is to being under water at various depths.

In the end, the INTP knows what the watch is, far better than the INTJ. He can tell you how it was made, the underlying logic of the circuitry, and probably have several ideas for "improving" the watch, e.g., make it even more accurate than it is.

The INTJ will know what the watch does far better than the INTP. He will understand its capabilities and its limitations. He'll know that he needs to remove it if he goes swimming, because the water test failed, and that it runs about 5 seconds per month faster than an atomic clock, so after a year he'll have to wind it back one minute.

@ INTPs going swimming with their watches on.
This looks like Ti v Te.

INTJ wants to figure out this watch. (concrete example of a solution to a real world problem)
INTP wants to figure out watchmaking (abstract, ideal solution to a hypothetical problem)
?

And your second post looks like Ni v Ne.

Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding.

INTP problem-solving is really about synthesis, yes. This is how Ne works, finding connections between previously unrelated ideas. This is how most knowledge and understanding progresses - by way of analogy.
How is Ni different from that?

With INTP's, there is truth and then there is everything else. It's more of a passive approach in that we see the truth as something that is out there to be explored. We're not trying to change the truth or forge into new territory necessarily - we just want to understand truth as it is.

The INTP doesn't want to (or has a hard time) choosing just one subject to explore because he wants to explore truth as a "whole". If I go get a Ph.D. in Physics, then I feel like I'm abandoning the arts, World History, Psychology, Business, Nutrition and Physical Education, spirituality, and everything else that encompasses "truth". I want to explore it all as a whole. I'm not interested in picking one of those things and making it "my own personal expertise". I want to be knowledgeable on all of it.

INTP wants to understand truth. It is what it is, we don't want to change it or manipulate it. We see it as unchangeable, and so we just want to understand it in all it's complexity.

Truth ^10!

Js are more stable in pursuit of a goal but Ps are better at troubleshooting when things are going wrong. Js help Ps be more focused and Ps help Js expand.

edit, @strike - per uumlau's mention - was attributing that to P because it's true that NFPs are generally better troubleshooters than NFJs, but probably Te is better at troubleshooting.

I think you were right first time around. Te is too rigid to be good for troubleshooting/firefighting. INTPs are excellent troubleshooters. Ps definitely have the advantage when it comes to flying by the seat of our pants. It's our only advantage! At least let us have that.

I still don't know if anyone has answered the OPs question though...

Speaking personally, I don't really care much for "evidence". Too easy to falsify, too easy to misinterpret or pick apart, too easy to repeat an experiment and get the opposite results...
"Lies, damned lies, statistics".
But, I will use formal evidence to construct an argument likely to convince my audience (even if it doesn't convince me...). One has to learn to do this in any academic environment. But I'd much rather work from first principles and reason alone. Evidence is only really useful for overturning flawed lines of thinking.

So, to answer your question, I'd say INTJs are probably more likely to use empirical evidence to "prove" a theory. INTPs are probably generally less interested in "proving" anything. Unless you are talking about a formal proof or mathematical proof, which doesn't rely on anything outside of pure logic.

Why do you ask, anyway?

 

[INTPness]

INTJ wants to figure out this watch. (concrete example of a solution to a real world problem)
INTP wants to figure out watchmaking (abstract, ideal solution to a hypothetical problem)

I was going to say something similar to this earlier in the thread, but INTJ's are "N's" too. Wouldn't it be ISTJ's that would want a "concrete solution to a real world problem". Sensors deal with the concrete, more or less, while intuitives tend to go for the abstract - and I would think that would include INTJ's. I'd like to know what some of the INTJ's think about this. Sometimes to INTP's you guys can have a "sensorish" feel about you - and maybe this has something to do with it - that you seem more concrete and "real world" than we do. Also, how do you INTJ's see your intuitiveness playing out? Is it like your N gives you ideas and hunches, but you still want to focus on concrete solutions?

As much as we have our head in the clouds, even a well-developed INTP understands the value and significance of "concrete results" and "concrete solutions". So, sometimes - when the situation calls for it, we almost have to shut our "N" off and just go for the concrete (make like an ISTJ, fake it 'til you make it). But, at least from my perspective, it's just not as fun and interesting when I have to focus strictly on the concrete. I don't enjoy what I'm doing nearly as much when it's all "concrete" and "real world". I like to dream a bit and let my mind wander to big ideas, original concepts, innovative solutions, etc. Basically, if I have to stay in the "concrete" for an extended period of time - I start to feel drained. Like if I'm in a job for 6 months and it's extremely concrete every single day - aaahhhhh! I feel like I need a big N release. Just wondering what INTJ's have to say in regards to the assumption or the observation that you seem more "concrete" than us. Is it true or does it just look that way from the outside?

 

[uumlau]

Actually, Te is rather concrete, due to being extroverted. I (mis)tested as ISTJ several times, and thus dismissed MBTI as meaningless twaddle for a long while. It turns out that questions like "do you prefer concrete facts or abstract theory?" strike a false dichotomy for INTJs. Ni is abstract, Te is (logically/logistically) concrete. I need concrete information to form correct and meaningful abstract theories. The main difference between INTJ and INTP in this regard is that the INTJ is internally intuitive, coming up with ideas and perspectives to understand a given set of data logically (Te). The INTP is internally logical (Ti), reaching externally for new ideas (Ne) to add to the internal logical model.

An ISTJ does something rather different: the evaluation of external data (Te) leaves a concrete subjective impression (Si), which in turn yields a comparison of current data to past data and a tendency to use consistent, reliable solutions. Ni doesn't compare so much to past data and facts, but more to past understandings of functionality. Very simplistically, Si says, "this is the same as that was, so it should work the same," while Ni says, "this works like these other things in most ways, so maybe it works like one of them in other ways." (Forgive the vagueness - a short explanation of Ni is necessarily vague, and while a long explanation of Ni might be more clear, it is often too long. )

 

[INTPness]

Actually, Te is rather concrete, due to being extroverted. I (mis)tested as ISTJ several times, and thus dismissed MBTI as meaningless twaddle for a long while. It turns out that questions like "do you prefer concrete facts or abstract theory?" strike a false dichotomy for INTJs. Ni is abstract, Te is (logically/logistically) concrete. I need concrete information to form correct and meaningful abstract theories. The main difference between INTJ and INTP in this regard is that the INTJ is internally intuitive, coming up with ideas and perspectives to understand a given set of data logically (Te). The INTP is internally logical (Ti), reaching externally for new ideas (Ne) to add to the internal logical model.

An ISTJ does something rather different: the evaluation of external data (Te) leaves a concrete subjective impression (Si), which in turn yields a comparison of current data to past data and a tendency to use consistent, reliable solutions. Ni doesn't compare so much to past data and facts, but more to past understandings of functionality. Very simplistically, Si says, "this is the same as that was, so it should work the same," while Ni says, "this works like these other things in most ways, so maybe it works like one of them in other ways." (Forgive the vagueness - a short explanation of Ni is necessarily vague, and while a long explanation of Ni might be more clear, it is often too long. )

OK, yeah, so Te likes to deal in the concrete. But, you said Te is concrete because it is extroverted. Ne is also extroverted, but not always concrete. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe Ne is more concrete than I think.

The picture I'm getting from all of this is that INTP's take in A LOT via Ne and then try to reduced it/simplify it/understand it through Ti. We take in a TON of information and connections and at least attempt to reduce it into this neat, tidy, internal construct so that it's easily retained and easily understandable.

INTJ's, on the other hand, have A LOT of internal ideas and theories and then try to narrow it/simplify it/execute it through Te. You have a TON of information and possibilities internally and then attempt to execute it/carry it out/test it in the real, concrete world.

If all that is true (?), it would explain why we seem to have our head in the clouds more. Because, as you said, our logic is mostly internal. It's below the surface and it's hidden, at least in large part. And on the outside (if we are using Ne), we come off as goofy, whacky, head in the clouds. With you guys, it's kind of the other way around. Endless possibilities on the inside, but what people see on the outside is very structured, focused, and logical.

 

[Redbone]

If all that is true (?), it would explain why we seem to have our head in the clouds more. Because, as you said, our logic is mostly internal. It's below the surface and it's hidden, at least in large part. And on the outside (if we are using Ne), we come off as goofy, whacky, head in the clouds. With you guys, it's kind of the other way around. Endless possibilities on the inside, but what people see on the outside is very structured, focused, and logical.

Ohhh...unfair!



This does sound pretty accurate, though.

 

[uumlau]

OK, yeah, so Te likes to deal in the concrete. But, you said Te is concrete because it is extroverted. Ne is also extroverted, but not always concrete. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe Ne is more concrete than I think.

The picture I'm getting from all of this is that INTP's take in A LOT via Ne and then try to reduced it/simplify it/understand it through Ti. We take in a TON of information and connections and at least attempt to reduce it into this neat, tidy, internal construct so that it's easily retained and easily understandable.

INTJ's, on the other hand, have A LOT of internal ideas and theories and then try to narrow it/simplify it/execute it through Te. You have a TON of information and possibilities internally and then attempt to execute it/carry it out/test it in the real, concrete world.

If all that is true (?), it would explain why we seem to have our head in the clouds more. Because, as you said, our logic is mostly internal. It's below the surface and it's hidden, at least in large part. And on the outside (if we are using Ne), we come off as goofy, whacky, head in the clouds. With you guys, it's kind of the other way around. Endless possibilities on the inside, but what people see on the outside is very structured, focused, and logical.

Yep, that's exactly it.

Ne is more concrete than Ni, but that isn't saying much.

It's sort of like Jung came up with three different concepts of objective/subjective dichotomies: T/F, S/N, e/i. Te and Se are, in this sense, the "most objective" while Ni and Fi are the most subjective, and then there's four that are mixtures of objective and subjective. INTPs have the mixed ones, Ti/Ne/Si/Fe, while INTJs have the "unmixed" ones, Ni/Te/Fi/Se.

 

[Salomé]

OK, yeah, so Te likes to deal in the concrete. But, you said Te is concrete because it is extroverted. Ne is also extroverted, but not always concrete. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe Ne is more concrete than I think.

The picture I'm getting from all of this is that INTP's take in A LOT via Ne and then try to reduced it/simplify it/understand it through Ti. We take in a TON of information and connections and at least attempt to reduce it into this neat, tidy, internal construct so that it's easily retained and easily understandable.

Extraverted intuition is not really about taking in information though. It's what you do with the information after you've taken it in. So it isn't 'extraverted' in the way that Te is - directed towards making a tangible impact on one's environment. The stuff Ne comes up with (essentially connections) is internally generated. It is created by the individual, not a product of the environment, even though something in the environment may have set the train in motion. It is perception, but it's internal perception - seeing with the inner eye. That's how I see it anyway.
NPs are the least concrete of types, I'd have said, since both our preferred mode of information processing, and our preferred method of arriving at conclusions are only tangentially related to 'reality'.

 

[Poki]

Yep, that's exactly it.

Ne is more concrete than Ni, but that isn't saying much.

It's sort of like Jung came up with three different concepts of objective/subjective dichotomies: T/F, S/N, e/i. Te and Se are, in this sense, the "most objective" while Ni and Fi are the most subjective, and then there's four that are mixtures of objective and subjective. INTPs have the mixed ones, Ti/Ne/Si/Fe, while INTJs have the "unmixed" ones, Ni/Te/Fi/Se.

Therefore Js swing from the extremes, while Ps are middle ground people.

J in middle earth is stressed, P swinging from extremes is stressed

edit: It can get confusing when Ps learn how to swing to extremes for fun and Js learn how to be in middle ground for accomplishing a task