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

[Totenkindly]

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.

But how can you possibly balance the entire model if you're sloppy with the pieces? There's too much variability!

It's like saying that "cold" and "frigid" are the same words. They are not. They have different connotations, and one is more specific than the other.Sometimes the difference doesn't matter; sometimes it WILL.

Now translate this into a general discussion where many different types of people are discussing a topic, and one person uses the word "love." How are we supposed to know what that means? I guarantee at least 50% of the ensuring arguments will be about something the original poster never meant.

Or someone says that someone else is dumb -- well, what is dumb to one person is NOT dumb to another, so what was actually MEANT by dumb?

Unless you're just brainstorming or sketching per se, if you are not precise about your terminology, there is no way to create an intricately accurate model.

To translate this into graphical terms, you cannot take a JPG picture at 72dpi and blow up the dimensions and get better quality (say, 300 dpi); your level of detail and precision in terminology determines how precise your final image can be.

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."

He's making you think about what a line means, instead of just operating at "top-level" perception.

Deconstructing it.

...Because the concept of various dimensions in space is actually pretty important in art analysis. Not all art movements use the same sort of dimensional space and you have to be able to perceive, understand, and articulate that in order to evaluate pieces you see.

Not much different than people assuming computers are "magical boxes" and not caring how they work or how the "how they work" aspect actually impacts how they can be used most effectively.

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.

Actually, I am always willing to change my beliefs.
But you have to give me a reason.

The biggest issue here: I have spent such a LONG time considering the idea and theories I hold and built them on evidence and observations, that if I am willing to state them as probably true, then you have a hard job against you to accumulate evidence that will tip the balance. It's not to say it can't happen, but it's usually not the case where in Level 1 of a discussion you are going to zing me with an idea that I have NEVER considered before or ignored. You will usually have to take the conversation up to Level 4 or 5 before you start tripping me up or locating my "fuzzy" spots.

For people who normally don't think in terms of building a rational case for something (and there are a decent amount), chances are I've already considered and dismissed their initial argument ahead of time.

Where you will see the need to adhere to observed or imparted knowledge is more in the realm of the perspectives:

For example, if my best guess for your motivation for doing something was X, and you inform me it was Y in a way that seems plausible to me, then I will immediately update my model to represent your motivation Y. I can't just stubbornly cling to X... unless you impart the information to me in an inconsistent manner that could suggest you are lying or not fully aware of your motivations.

You want to change an INTP's mind? You'll have less success in an argument over her logic, instead you should focus on correcting her initial assumptions. Then her logic will HAVE to change. INTP logic is ideally built on information; you want to change the information that primed the model if you want to win us over.

And this is why my earlier comments about vocabulary are so important if you want to discuss things with an INTP. If you convince us that a particular word was sloppy or meant something else than what we assumed... we have to change our conclusions and the model itself to accommodate the new definition.

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.)

I guess I gave up on INTJs, then.
I find them impenetrable and don't really understand them well.
They come across as remarkable rigid and unwilling to change their views, and I just don't bother to get into long exchanges if they disagree.
I deal better with INFJs, since their people skills tend to make them interact in ways that give me "positive cues" that they are listening and considering, and if they are Ti strong, then we can engage on that level.

 

[onemoretime]

NTJs see words as inherently meaningful. NTPs see words as abstract representations of something inherently meaningful.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

I very much agree to that notion. I really like defining things well, but then there's just the general aspect of "figuring it out" perhaps in a non-determined way that can be used to avoid much of the unneeded definition stuff.

INTP, this is where Fe comes handy. Even the hard-core scientist can utilize a teeny weeny bit Fe to just accept that one's definition of "rock" doesn't make their statements completely invalid..

No, I don't mean that Fe would be used to be sloppy about something. No, I'm talking of quite something else.

I was watching a doctoral dissertation today. It involved a bit Fe, which was based on Ti Se Ne stuff. The Fe stuff, when used under the control of Ti, helped to find the essential parts of the thesis to examine. It helped to find what parts are important, what people agree upon, and what aspects of the thesis could be accepted as is, and what needed more examination.

 

[Uytuun]

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."

YES. Only I don't really relate to the bolded part, but I have mostly interacted with INTPs and it seems to me that it isn't so much the observations as what they do with them that disturbs me. Also don't relate to the "he does not seem to know what he's doing part". That manifests more like "how can you be so blind?".

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."

Yup - they'll say I just shift the idea, or shift to a level that doesn't add to the question, or just translate it, or add things that don't have anything to do with it, or shift away from the question at hand...this is why I would call NTPs constructive and NTJs deconstructive.

I don't know if they feel that I'm stuck in a box, more like stuck in my ways of compulsive undermining.

All in all, very accurate. There's a huge potential for noncommunication.

 

[tinkerbell]

on the OP.... that conversation has never happed between me and ENTJ's I've met. I really welcome their thinking in the main....they tighten my thinking up a bit...interogate it... almost like stress test. Typically I don't produce models, more ideas and concepts, which is mainly industry related

Conversations I don't like with ENTJ's direct or indirect agression (exclusively men in my experience) almosot always unnessesary. and controlling-ness if they are more senior to me... nothing to do with my ideas

 

[simulatedworld]

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're pretty much just criticizing the NTP's lack of Ni here...and you have some fine points.

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.

How do you know it's "supposed to be closer to universal"? I would argue that your desire to look at things this way is just part of the Ni+Te perspective, and not an inherent property of certain theoretical realms.

To Ne+Ti, given enough time for trial and error, everything can be explained according to precise sets of situational variables.

 

[Totenkindly]

NTJs see words as inherently meaningful. NTPs see words as abstract representations of something inherently meaningful.

Could you expound on the distinction a bit?
It's a interesting twist of a phrase.

 

[simulatedworld]

Actually, I am always willing to change my beliefs.
But you have to give me a reason...

Unless those beliefs are the fabric of Ti itself, in which case it's very, very hard to get an INTP to look at the issue in any other way.

If giving you a reason to change your beliefs is nigh impossible, are you really always willing to change them?

I guess I gave up on INTJs, then.
I find them impenetrable and don't really understand them well.
They come across as remarkable rigid and unwilling to change their views, and I just don't bother to get into long exchanges if they disagree.
I deal better with INFJs, since their people skills tend to make them interact in ways that give me "positive cues" that they are listening and considering, and if they are Ti strong, then we can engage on that level.

I have the same problem with them. They never give any feedback on anything unless they're extremely impressed (in which case you get one of those rare and exceptionally rewarding moments of beaming Fi) or extremely pissed off (in which case you get to deal with inferior Se's unchained rage channeled through Ni's awareness of how to REALLY get back at you, which is not something anybody should ever have to deal with!)

I find that knowing how to state their opinions clearly and give feedback at the right times makes all the difference with INTJs. It makes some of them really delightful people--it's still hard to get them to pay attention to your ideas in the first place because they're too busy to care, but if you can break in enough that they start to respect your ideas in general, they're waaaay more malleable and open to change than they seem on the outside.

 

[sculpting]

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.

My INTP today turned a request for a powerpoint presentation into this bizarre hysterical conversation about "defining philosophical entities" that somehow was making fun of the ISTJs in manufacturing. My ENTP understood but I only get every third sentence. WTF? giggle, giggle...The INTP and I communicate via nonverbal telepathy and hand gestures.

INTPs are flexible now, rigid later.

INTJs are rigid now, flexible later.

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.

Ah yes, this sounds familiar. It makes for really fun theoretical convos and brainstorming but for horrific operations management. It gives me seizures.

You want to change an INTP's mind? You'll have less success in an argument over her logic, instead you should focus on correcting her initial assumptions. Then her logic will HAVE to change. INTP logic is ideally built on information; you want to change the information that primed the model if you want to win us over.


I guess I gave up on INTJs, then.
I find them impenetrable and don't really understand them well.
They come across as remarkable rigid and unwilling to change their views, and I just don't bother to get into long exchanges if they disagree.
I deal better with INFJs, since their people skills tend to make them interact in ways that give me "positive cues" that they are listening and considering, and if they are Ti strong, then we can engage on that level.

That was a really awesome, enlightening post. I kinda knew about the initial assumptions, but it was cool to see it all drawn out.

For INTJs, strategically employ an ENFP army. Send them in to rapidly blurt out the idea, emphasize the new interpretation, emphasize the incorrect INTJ idea, have them giggle, roll on the floor, sparkle, and then dart out of the room before the INTJ can speak.

Give the INTJ three days to think and remold. No kidding, this really does work pretty well. Works okay on ISTJs some as well.

 

[onemoretime]

Could you expound on the distinction a bit?
It's a interesting twist of a phrase.

NTJ - given the context, a word is meaningful in and of itself, and once the context is understood, the burden of understanding is on the listener, since the word is what it is (sorry, trying to ape NiTe fairly ineffectively here)

NTP - we can't understand the contextual surrounding until we know what the words are representing, because the words themselves are just symbols. Once we know what those symbols represent, and what those mean, then we have the contextual framework that will make further discussion meaningful.

 

[Litvyak]

NTJ - given the context, a word is meaningful in and of itself, and once the context is understood, the burden of understanding is on the listener, since the word is what it is (sorry, trying to ape NiTe fairly ineffectively here)

No, not at all, that's fairly accurate

 

[FDG]

NTJs see words as inherently meaningful. NTPs see words as abstract representations of something inherently meaningful.

Yeah cuz NTPs are dominant perceiving types (they have a perceiving base function) while NTJs are dominant rational types (they have a judging function).

 

[Totenkindly]

Unless those beliefs are the fabric of Ti itself, in which case it's very, very hard to get an INTP to look at the issue in any other way. If giving you a reason to change your beliefs is nigh impossible, are you really always willing to change them?

Lol... again, I am answering the actual words that you uttered -- I've precisely answered your question.

Look at it again.

...Are you really always willing to change them?
Yes. I am always really willing to change them.

I have the intent to change if I realize I'm wrong.
I will not refuse to change my mind out of stubbornness
or revenge
or a vendetta
or embarrassment
or whatever other hell of a reason you can offer me.

This is unlike some people. I know many who will fight, and deny, and refuse, and circumvent, and whatever else. They are NOT willing and often even know they are not willing. Because they don't want to change their mind.

But, just as I said above, willingness has nothing to do with it.

If I realize I'm wrong, I'm changing.
If I think you're wrong, I might sometimes even WANT to change my answer, because sometimes I just want to get along, or might feel like being viewed favorably or what not... but I can't. Instead I have to endure your annoyance with me for not agreeing with you. (Note: "You" meant in the general sense.)

I've tried to do otherwise and it doesn't work, I feel like crap.

So, dear friend, your question here -- "If giving you a reason to change your beliefs is nigh impossible, are you really always willing to change them?" -- is really non-sensicial to me. Logically, I can be 100% willing to change while at the same time you remain unable to show me that I'm wrong. *shrug*

... Sorry for the Long Version, but the Short Version did not appease you.

I have the same problem with them. They never give any feedback on anything unless they're extremely impressed (in which case you get one of those rare and exceptionally rewarding moments of beaming Fi) or extremely pissed off (in which case you get to deal with inferior Se's unchained rage channeled through Ni's awareness of how to REALLY get back at you, which is not something anybody should ever have to deal with!)

That seems to be my experience. Out of the blue I'll just get this overpowering emote from them -- either joy or anger. otherwise I'm constantly trying to feel out what is happening and just cannot get my hands on much at all.

I find that knowing how to state their opinions clearly and give feedback at the right times makes all the difference with INTJs. It makes some of them really delightful people--it's still hard to get them to pay attention to your ideas in the first place because they're too busy to care, but if you can break in enough that they start to respect your ideas in general, they're waaaay more malleable and open to change than they seem on the outside.

I agree, just from dealing with the likes of my boss.
But I'm still not quite sure how I got through the cracks.

NTJ - given the context, a word is meaningful in and of itself, and once the context is understood, the burden of understanding is on the listener, since the word is what it is (sorry, trying to ape NiTe fairly ineffectively here)

NTP - we can't understand the contextual surrounding until we know what the words are representing, because the words themselves are just symbols. Once we know what those symbols represent, and what those mean, then we have the contextual framework that will make further discussion meaningful.

Oh, cool -- got it.

yeah, I read everything as a "sign" rather than the reality. it's all pointers and meaning changes based on context.

Which leads to the heavy contextual emphasis of NTP and the annoyance I feel directed at me by NTJs, who think a lot of this should be 'self-apparent.'

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Heh, I can empathize with both of those original paragraphs depending on whether I'm talking to an INTP or INTJ. I don't think they nail ENTP and ENTJ quite as accurately (at least from my experience), but they aren't totally off either.

When it comes to language my view is that explicit definitions are good, because it makes communication easier. English is not superior to French and German is not superior to Japanese, but if we're going to have a discussion then we need a common language to understand each other. That is the purpose of the definitions (to me at least).

 

[Uytuun]

Unless those beliefs are the fabric of Ti itself, in which case it's very, very hard to get an INTP to look at the issue in any other way.

Exactly, INTPs are more than willing to change their minds, they just cannot (seem to) change the assumptions under which they operate on an absolutely fundamental level. And the point is that don't *see* those assumptions. So they also don't question them.

I find that knowing how to state their opinions clearly and give feedback at the right times makes all the difference with INTJs. It makes some of them really delightful people--it's still hard to get them to pay attention to your ideas in the first place because they're too busy to care, but if you can break in enough that they start to respect your ideas in general, they're waaaay more malleable and open to change than they seem on the outside.

The thing that I've found works is first to work through the basics in cognitive style and assumptions before you start to work through a (complex) issue. You also both need to be open and willing to adapt your communication style a little. I find that discussions can be very mutually enriching when you do that. But the moment you're no longer making a conscious effort - and I sometimes don't on this board - it can be a real train wreck. On that note, you mention what NTJs can do to adapt to NTPs, but NTPs should also make a little effort to adapt to NTJs. Also, the more personally and emotionally involved INTs are in a discussion, the more tricky it gets IMO. Overall, though, I haven't had *that* many issues with INTP-INTJ discussions. I can think of way more problematic types...I respect our P brethren a lot.

Now translate this into a general discussion where many different types of people are discussing a topic, and one person uses the word "love." How are we supposed to know what that means? I guarantee at least 50% of the ensuring arguments will be about something the original poster never meant.

Yes, I agree 100%...only it struck me that the NTJ used the term "debate" whereas you're talking about a "discussion"...

 

[onemoretime]

On that note, you mention what NTJs can do to adapt to NTPs, but NTPs should also make a little effort to adapt to NTJs.

I get on this board to escape the real world, not do what I have to every day.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

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.

Lenore is an INTJ, I take it she did not write this?

 

[Uytuun]

I get on this board to escape the real world, not do what I have to every day.

Then no cuddles for you, my dear.

 

[onemoretime]

Then no cuddles for you, my dear.

NTJ cuddles feel like an iron maiden

 

[Uytuun]

NTJ cuddles feel like an iron maiden

*cuddles!*