[INTP] Dominant-Tertiary loops of INTP's

[Totenkindly]

Anyway, I expect tertiary believers to prove their own belief. Never mind that it doesn't jibe with Jung, who wrote of the auxiliary type, not as a function/attitude combination, but simply as functions without any particular attitude. This leaves the theory open to endless possibilities - it's an open-ended theory, not closed in and simple-minded reductionism. And need I remind you that Jung himself derided reductionism, whether material or spiritual in form.

Why do I care what Jung thinks again? He's dead.
I'm more interested in what you think and why.

Ni?

Well, you can run but you can't hide.

 

[Mal12345]

Why do I care what Jung thinks again? He's dead.
I'm more interested in what you think and why.



Well, you can run but you can't hide.

I could be Ni or Ne auxiliary at any given time, according to Jung who didn't distinguish auxiliaries the way we do.

And anyway, you're not interested in what I think. All you've done so far is point to where I claimed to substantiate my view with facts, and then you declared that I was using a theory and not facts. That's methodology, the How of thinking and not the What or Why.

 

[Totenkindly]

I could be Ni or Ne auxiliary at any given time, according to Jung who didn't distinguish auxiliaries the way we do.

And anyway, you're not interested in what I think. All you've done so far is point to where I claimed to substantiate my view with facts, and then you declared that I was using a theory and not facts. That's methodology, the How of thinking and not the What or Why.

Yes, Ti is concerned with methodology -- how we think.
The rational structure of the argument.

You seem to be more attached to your content.

To me, if I can't track how you got to your content, you might as well have pulled it out of your ear. Now, maybe there is a lot going on inside your ear, but you can't just tell me there is something going on inside your ear -- I need to be able to see how you arrived at it, since I can't just "see" it. You have to start with something we both know and accept, and then trace me a route with principles we agree on, to reach what you see.

So yes.
Rational structure is important in the process of conveying ideas.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I too think Mal is an INTJ.

I've had arguments with him that really remind me of the argument between me and @Zarathustra.

If that was a Ti vs. Ni, argument, the one between Mal and Jennifer probably is as well.

"'argue" is a neutral term for me, in case anyone says "'we're not arguing." An argument is merely a verbal disagreement.

 

[Mal12345]

Yes, Ti is concerned with methodology -- how we think.
The rational structure of the argument.

You seem to be more attached to your content.

To me, if I can't track how you got to your content, you might as well have pulled it out of your ear. Now, maybe there is a lot going on inside your ear, but you can't just tell me there is something going on inside your ear -- I need to be able to see how you arrived at it, since I can't just "see" it. You have to start with something we both know and accept, and then trace me a route with principles we agree on, to reach what you see.

So yes.
Rational structure is important in the process of conveying ideas.

As I said, I pay attention to what people say on this forum, and take it as evidentiary. But I have to assume that the poster has a certain expertise at typing others.

For example, when someone says they can't determine if their mother is an ISFJ or an INFJ, and that she seems to be both, either the poster is a poor typer or believes that everybody is only one type. After conversing with the person for a while, I determine that the poster really is finding N and S qualities in equal amounts. The problem therefore is the assumption that everybody can be only a single type.

 

[Zarathustra]

Oh, you Ni'ers are so cute.

Don't try to pawn him off on us.

I assure you, we don't want him.

 

[Totenkindly]

As I said, I pay attention to what people say on this forum, and take it as evidentiary. But I have to assume that the poster has a certain expertise at typing others.

For example, when someone says they can't determine if their mother is an ISFJ or an INFJ, and that she seems to be both, either the poster is a poor typer or believes that everybody is only one type. After conversing with the person for a while, I determine that the poster really is finding N and S qualities in equal amounts. The problem therefore is the assumption that everybody can be only a single type.

Since people are who they are, it's the system's fault if it can't accommodate the people it's supposed to be describing.

MBTI represents some people pretty decently, but the binary pair approach culminating in the establishment of 16 types possesses inherent flaws. Supposed function order doesn't work for everyone; some people have spillover between their introverted and extroverted functions; etc. The system's just a big sorting hat with somewhat finnicky rules at times that doesn't know what to do when the rules are broken.

Don't try to pawn him off on us.

I assure you, we don't want him.

Damn. What are WE supposed to do with him?

...maybe I can sell him to the ESFPs if I throw in a handful of magic beans.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

...maybe I can sell him to the ESFPs if I throw in a handful of magic beans.

Do we even have ESFPs here? I can't think of anyone I've seen who is an ESFP. Actually, the only ES type on here at all that I can think of is DJ.

 

[JocktheMotie]

INTPs in dom-tert won't usually control others, they'll hyper control themselves by minimizing. ISFJs, particularly the men, when obviously a bit unstable like the all-star you're describing, will control others with their own concepts of shoulds, ought to be, etc. These will be unspoken because an OCD Si dom will assume these concepts are self evident and Ti rationalizes their truth.

Good luck.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Don't try to pawn him off on us.

I assure you, we don't want him.

I guess I get to go into the same box as [MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION], since people all call us either ISTPs, INTPs, or INTJs, but there's no dang universal constant for who wants us! This whole Ni Vs. Ne is too freaking complex! And even if it's Ni and not Ne, is it dominant or tertiary Ni? Gosh so many contingencies!

Well, I guess maybe Ne is more connective, and Ni more penetrating, but idk.
Ti seems more logical, and Te more constructive.
Se could be more contextual, and Si more referential.
Oh boy, this is such a fun puzzle!

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I guess I get to go into the same box as [MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION], since people all call us either ISTPs, INTPs, or INTJs, but there's no dang universal constant for who wants us! This whole Ni Vs. Ne is too freaking complex! And even if it's Ni and not Ne, is it dominant or tertiary Ni? Gosh so many contingencies!

Well, I guess maybe Ne is more connective, and Ni more penetrating, but idk.
Ti seems more logical, and Te more constructive.
Se could be more contextual, and Si more referential.
Oh boy, this is such a fun puzzle!

I just don't think either of you are Ti doms. You don't explain yourself like Ti doms. I don't see things I can logically follow. That doesn't mean I need to agree with them... I just have to be able to logically follow them to a point. It has to make sense under the right lens.

A good test to see if you are a Ti dom is if you have discomfort with things you can't make sense of, especially in your youth. Does making sense of things make you happy? Or do you not necessarily need something to make sense? It seems like you're comfortable with an idea just "being". INTPs find this very very difficult. ISTPs, too.

You both make sense more as Ni doms with less developed Te.

 

[Mal12345]

I guess I get to go into the same box as [MENTION=13589]Mal+[/MENTION], since people all call us either ISTPs, INTPs, or INTJs, but there's no dang universal constant for who wants us! This whole Ni Vs. Ne is too freaking complex! And even if it's Ni and not Ne, is it dominant or tertiary Ni? Gosh so many contingencies!

Well, I guess maybe Ne is more connective, and Ni more penetrating, but idk.
Ti seems more logical, and Te more constructive.
Se could be more contextual, and Si more referential.
Oh boy, this is such a fun puzzle!

My wife can tell you which type is more penetrating.

 

[Jaguar]

Don't try to pawn him off on us.

I assure you, we don't want him.

There's that word, again - "we."
Seriously, do you think in terms of "we" as opposed to "I"?

 

[Zarathustra]

There's that word, again - "we."
Seriously, do you think in terms of "we" as opposed to "I"?

I think in many different ways, Jag.

The post I responded to referred to a group.

And, as such, I made a (mostly) joke referring to that group.

A deeper question would be, why does that apparently bother you?

And if your answer is gunna be some of your stock bullshit about thinking for yourself, you can save it.

I'm about as independent a thinker as it gets without slipping into some stupid solipsistic worldview.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm about as independent a thinker as it gets

You'd like to be.

 

[Zarathustra]

You'd like to be.

I said "as it gets without slipping into some stupid solipsistic worldview".

 

[Mal12345]

I just don't think either of you are Ti doms. You don't explain yourself like Ti doms. I don't see things I can logically follow. That doesn't mean I need to agree with them... I just have to be able to logically follow them to a point. It has to make sense under the right lens.

A good test to see if you are a Ti dom is if you have discomfort with things you can't make sense of, especially in your youth. Does making sense of things make you happy? Or do you not necessarily need something to make sense? It seems like you're comfortable with an idea just "being". INTPs find this very very difficult. ISTPs, too.

You both make sense more as Ni doms with less developed Te.

Ah shucks, I've been outed.

 

[Jaguar]

I said "as it gets without slipping into some stupid solipsistic worldview".

I see you calmed down. Your other post made me wonder if someone broke into your house this morning and took a shit in your bowl of Cheerios.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ah shucks, I've been outed.

When did you first find out you were INTJ? Apparently, some people know as early as age 5.

 

[Mal12345]

When did you first find out you were INTJ? Apparently, some people know as early as age 5.

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] convinced me a long time ago here.