[NT] are NT's prone to convergent thinking or divergent thinking

[Bnova]

so I watched divergent,related that experience with my experience at personality cafe,among the NTs there I'm pretty much...unliked...my threads or most of my threads are entertaining like gold comedy but yeah I'll not get into that too much as an INTJ with weaker %s I:50-70% N:30-50 T:20-40 J:20-40 and being a E4x3,its quite HARD understanding who and what i really am
so yeah i was diagnosed with mild schizophrenia few years ago and as we all know through the latest of research that people diagnosed with mild schizophrenia are prone to developing and nurturing divergent thinking, from the other intjs I'm pretty unique and my way of thinking is pretty unique too,ranging from visual prowess to connecting the dots with the Ni-Te loop and coming up with these outworldly theories,its just crazy...

well I wanna know is ,are other intjs prone to convergent thinking or divergent thinking?

 

[00c]

Divergent; NT are among the rarest as a whole and the more divergent among the NTs would be NTJs as a result of Fi and all of their other more aggressive and assertive functions in place rather than those of NTPs.
Convergent thinking is clearly much more characteristic of SJs. In time all SJs follow what NTs produce and only then does it become convergent thinking, everything they first held with such blind skepticism becomes something they refer to day in and out.

 

[Totenkindly]

Divergent; NT are among the rarest as a whole and the more divergent among the NTs would be NTJs as a result of Fi and all of their other more aggressive and assertive functions in place rather than those of NTPs.

Why would Fi and aggressive be divergent? Wouldn't it rather suggest more focus since there's an internal impulse driving the car? You've also got Te pulling things together and organized it externally.

Ne is the proverbial "arrows radiating from a central point" function. That's divergent. You're pinging off things freely and seeing where they take you (in any direction), versus trying to take a bunch of randomly bouncing particles and trying to organize them somehow.

Convergent thinking is clearly much more characteristic of SJs. In time all SJs follow what NTs produce and only then does it become convergent thinking, everything they first held with such blind skepticism becomes something they refer to day in and out.

I see.

 

[00c]

Why would Fi and aggressive be divergent? Wouldn't it rather suggest more focus since there's an internal impulse driving the car? You've also got Te pulling things together and organized it externally.

Ne is the proverbial "arrows radiating from a central point" function. That's divergent. You're pinging off things freely and seeing where they take you (in any direction), versus trying to take a bunch of randomly bouncing particles and trying to organize them somehow.



I see.

Fight me, you're just trying to make INTPs the most special little snowflake. Fe is group-harmonizing, it doesn't care for ones own goals as much as Fi which has a much more personalized agenda.
Ne is convergent because it's common and so is a commonality between the majority of peoples thinking, therefore convergent. Si is cautious and cares about the past, which is typically not as useful and innovative as present thinking except in the arena of writing memoirs or the like and Ti likes to skew things to fit their own definition like you're trying to right now.

 

[Totenkindly]

Fight me, you're just trying to make INTPs the specialest snowflake.

Uh, excuse me? You don't even know me, but your first response is to launch a personal accusation.

I don't give a shit about special snowflakes, I just care that what you say makes sense, and I explained why I had trouble seeing that your explanation made any sense. So yeah, I'll disagree with you until you give me a substantial explanation that makes sense.

Fe is group-harmonizing, it doesn't care for ones own goals. Ne is convergent because it's common and so is a commonality between the majority of peoples thinking dubbing it convergent.

Ne is convergent because it is common? What does that have to do with anything? and the second part of that sentence seems to be self-referential logic.

Still waiting for an actual answer.

 

[00c]

Uh, excuse me? You don't even know me, but your first response is to launch a personal accusation.

I don't give a shit about special snowflakes, I just care that what you say makes sense, and I explained why I had trouble seeing that your explanation made any sense. So yeah, I'll disagree with you until you give me a substantial explanation that makes sense.



Ne is convergent because it is common? What does that have to do with anything? and the second part of that sentence seems to be self-referential logic.

Still waiting for an actual answer.

Well if you can't interpret for yourself and not be spoonfed then I guess you won't be getting another answer. Divergent thinking is straying from the common thinking which is referred to as convergent, it's not difficult to grasp. If we're to talk about self-referential logic you should take your own post into account which wasn't needed since the explanation was clear enough unless you need a step-by-step instruction which would only be a reiteration of what I already said in different words. The answer is right there and if you can't understand it, whoops, that must really suck since you feel the need to reply to every reply.

 

[á´…eparted]

Well if you can't interpret for yourself and not be spoonfed then I guess you won't be getting another answer. Divergent thinking is straying from the common thinking which is referred to as convergent, it's not difficult to grasp. If we're to talk about self-referential logic you should take your own post into account which wasn't needed since the explanation was clear enough unless you need a step-by-step instruction which would only be a reiteration of what I already said in different words. The answer is right there and if you can't understand it, whoops, that must really suck since you feel the need to reply to every reply.

First of all, you're being a complete jerk (and it completely came out of nowhere too), and insinuatint that you know it all and that Jennifer is stupid (the latter of which is through and through not true). You're not going to get productive discussions this way.

Second, Ne is well known and regarded as divergent and tangential. That is how it operates. It considers information, expands upon it, and keeps building off an original point. That is, by definition. The rarity of a function has no meaning towards this. Further, rarity isn't a factor at all. You're just shouting "You're wrong, I'm right, and there isn't, anything you can do about it". That's not fair, and you haven't offered anything substantaiting to back up your assertions, where as Jennifer has. Aka: your explination was not clear, good, and was quite well shown to be incorrect. She meant no ill will by this, but by being so hostile at the get go, she responded definsively and pushed back (which is a completely fair and reasonable response).

Finally, its rather silly, and ironic to (wrongly and unfairly) chastize Jennifer for promoting rarity and special snowflakeism, when you yourself say that NT's as a whole are the rarest. So what? Rarity doesn't matter.

Honestly, it just seems like you want an excuse to be nasty to someone. Which, quite frankly, isn't ok.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well if you can't interpret for yourself and not be spoonfed then I guess you won't be getting another answer.

To clarify: it's not "spoonfeeding" for you to actually EXPLAIN your thinking in a discussion.

You did sneak more into your post, though, since my response -- tricksy of you, but I'll read it anyway to see if illuminates anything further (since, hey, I edit my posts a few times too to get things right):

Si is cautious and cares about the past, which is typically not as useful and innovative as present thinking except in the arena of writing memoirs or the like and Ti likes to skew things to fit their own definition like you're trying to right now.

Yeah, you hate INTPs, don't you? (Don't ask me why I think that.) Anyway, kind of irrelevant.

Divergent thinking is straying from the common thinking which is referred to as convergent, it's not difficult to grasp. If we're to talk about self-referential logic you should take your own post into account which wasn't needed since the explanation was clear enough unless you need a step-by-step instruction which would only be a reiteration of what I already said in different words. The answer is right there and if you can't understand it, whoops, that must really suck since you feel the need to reply to every reply.

Do you realize this paragraph has no actual content except to criticize my intelligence? Get a grip, please.

I don't think you know what convergent and divergent mean.

DIVERGENT
1. tending to be different or develop in different directions:
2. (of a series) increasing indefinitely as more of its terms are added.

CONVERGENT
coming closer together, especially in characteristics or ideas:

In other words, divergent spreads out / develops in different directions, becoming more indefinite. Convergent coalesces and pulls together.

Based on those definitions, you should be able to understand why I bought up the example of arrows radiating outwardly from a starting point. It's not hard to grasp, even if you disagree. I think your attempt to equate coalescence with SJ traditionalism is just plain sloppy, but hey, go ahead and try to sell that -- maybe you'll find someone out there to snooker.

 

[Cygnus]

among the NTs there I'm pretty much...unliked...my threads or most of my threads are entertaining like gold comedy

Because you're not an INTJ.

Divergent; NT are among the rarest as a whole and the more divergent among the NTs would be NTJs as a result of Fi and all of their other more aggressive and assertive functions in place rather than those of NTPs.
Convergent thinking is clearly much more characteristic of SJs. In time all SJs follow what NTs produce and only then does it become convergent thinking, everything they first held with such blind skepticism becomes something they refer to day in and out.

Keirsey temperaments are meant to identify a person's type by directly observing how they behave, it can't be counted on to gage their cognitive processes. From what I know, the rationale behind it is that Sensing defines your appearance, so Se is most plainly visible, Si has a moderate but subdued presence, and Intuitives are harder to observe by sight and are divided into NF and NT based on what they do, while SPs and SJs are categorized by how they show it.


I think it's more closely related to Ti vs. Te, I'll see what [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] thinks.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think it's more closely related to Ti vs. Te, I'll see what Jennifer thinks.

I'm not sure, I'm still thinking (and as soon as I start to get an answer, more questions pop up... so... nothing clear yet in my head.)

But looking in terms of the OP, which specifically talks about INTJs and also about "regular INTJs" (the assumption is that they are convergent to start with), whereas bnova is suggesting that his mild schizophrenia leads him to be more "divergent."

So I then immediately ask (1) How are INTJs convergent, in bnova's view, if I want to define convergent for this discussion and (2) how would schizophrenia push an INTJ towards more divergent thinking and what would divergent mean in that context?

My take on that was that INTJs seem to have a sharp focus -- they have an internal vision that they then sharpen to very specific concrete ideas. Yes, that's in context of a Ni + Te mechanism. (this also could apply to Si + Te.)

Meanwhile, if you get Ti, you get a Ti + Pe setup (Ne or Se), which to me seems to more naturally radiate. Te seems to focus on very specific statements, it wants to crystalize things and moves from the general to the specific; Ti is looking for principles by nature, it moves from the specific to the general. That's where I think you are going with your suggestion here.

My mind is already racing on to see if even BROADER generalizations can be made though (such as with Fi and Fe).

So would it likely that:
Ji + Pe = divergent in nature
Pi + Je = convergent?

Still thinking, but that's where my process just went.

[And I guess my thought process, as you see, has trouble crystalizing into specifics: You can see that the more I think about it, the more I 'reach out' for more things to bring into a general concept, versus crystalizing into something very specific.]

 

[Bnova]

Because you're not an INTJ.

then what type do you think i am?

 

[Bnova]

I'm not sure, I'm still thinking (and as soon as I start to get an answer, more questions pop up... so... nothing clear yet in my head.)

But looking in terms of the OP, which specifically talks about INTJs and also about "regular INTJs" (the assumption is that they are convergent to start with), whereas bnova is suggesting that his mild schizophrenia leads him to be more "divergent."

So I then immediately ask (1) How are INTJs convergent, in bnova's view, if I want to define convergent for this discussion and (2) how would schizophrenia push an INTJ towards more divergent thinking and what would divergent mean in that context?

My take on that was that INTJs seem to have a sharp focus -- they have an internal vision that they then sharpen to very specific concrete ideas. Yes, that's in context of a Ni + Te mechanism. (this also could apply to Si + Te.)

Meanwhile, if you get Ti, you get a Ti + Pe setup (Ne or Se), which to me seems to more naturally radiate. Te seems to focus on very specific statements, it wants to crystalize things and moves from the general to the specific; Ti is looking for principles by nature, it moves from the specific to the general. That's where I think you are going with your suggestion here.

My mind is already racing on to see if even BROADER generalizations can be made though (such as with Fi and Fe).

So would it likely that:
Ji + Pe = divergent in nature
Pi + Je = convergent?

Still thinking, but that's where my process just went.

[And I guess my thought process, as you see, has trouble crystalizing into specifics: You can see that the more I think about it, the more I 'reach out' for more things to bring into a general concept, versus crystalizing into something very specific.]

I commend you on your observational skills you seem like a truly unique individual in your own right,

this is going to be a rather simple explanation

How i view divergent thinking is how it connects to my mild schizophrenia while most INTJs seem to be narrowed to one train of thought and they just seem to not grasp concepts around what i say, my imaginative side and my visionary prowess= divergent thought thinking around a problem outside of the box but with no cage,it seems iv'e hit the quota where my explanation makes absolutely no sense though it makes sense to me,visualize thinking outside the box without a cage around you,the cage suggests that some INTJs are stuck in a smaller cycle of thought whilst I'm I dont have constraints in my thinking because i believe in the impossible made possible,most \intjs just accept things as they are,I think what i'm describing is more a psychological state, PsychologicaState=(Ni+Te)xRiskAptitude(Inspiration aptitude) I dont know if that made sense i kind of get the feeling this will put your thoughts in disarray,good luck