[MBTI General] T's no more logical/rational than F's?

[Poki]

I disagree here, though it might just be a matter of semantics. You use the word "logic" for the outcome, I use it for the process. As I see it (and learned it), logic is a set of rules which, when applied, will return a certain outcome. Doesn't really matter, though, as long as we are clear on each other's meaning.

Ok...so your referring to traversing logic...like traversing a set of rules. I use the word to describe what would be more like the logical equation...logic is not an action therefore it's not a process. It's semantics, but sometimes you have to traverse the semantics to reach what some people mean. Traversal of logic is like nothing to me...I even play with the logic like putty for fun. It's not a set of rules to me, it's something to play with and mold and use to understand. It's a tool with a crazy amount of uses because it can be transformed. Like plastic..it can be twisted and formed and manipulated and such. Logic is the same way. Traversing it will cause loops and such and breaks that allow you to refine it and tweak it.

Imagine taking all the input you described and forming the logic around it to fit...that's what I do.

 

[reckful]

I had to figure out what Thinking is exactly, in Jungian terms, because honestly, it never really felt important until now. I found this on Extraverted Thinking.

Psychological Types, C. G. Jung:

...

As a result of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data. This orientation of thinking produces a noticeable peculiarity.

Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.

Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin.

...

So, the word of the day is OBJECTIVELY oriented, which is so much of a better word than rational or logical since both thinking and feeling are actually rational, and since logicality is mostly just a synonym for practicality, which is an attitude both present in any goal oriented endevour, objective or subjective.

That leaves us with the question as to whether Thinkers are better logicians than Feelers. And I think they would have better reason to develop those skill, because logic is essentially the manipulation of objects, which the thinkers domain. Buuuut, a Thinker cannot be essentially objective and still function, they still have a subjective (Feeling) function that they need to operate as a person. The same for Feelers. The difference between Thinkers and Feelers is entirely in emphasis and not in essence. We're the same-ish, at least enough to invoke a canny valley, which is why this thread exists.

You totally misunderstood that Jung quote.

"I found this on Extraverted Thinking," you say. So far, so good. That entire passage you quoted is Jung describing extraverted thinking, not thinking.

"As a result of the general attitude of extraversion," Jung explains (at the start of the passage you quoted), "thinking is orientated by the object and objective data."

A-a-and that's extraverted thinking that is so "orientated" — not thinking in general.

"Thinking in general" — Jung goes on to explain (in your quoted passage) — "is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions."

The "firstly" in that sentence is how introverted thinking gets fed, and the "secondly" is how extraverted thinking gets fed. As Jung explains, "Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former."

Read Jung's description of introverted thinking and you'll read about thinking that's "orientated" by subjective factors.

As Jung saw things, objective/subjective (as those terms were used in that quoted passage) was an E/I thing, not a T/F thing.

 

[Qlip]

You totally misunderstood that Jung quote.

"I found this on Extraverted Thinking," you say. So far, so good. That entire passage you quoted is Jung describing extraverted thinking, not thinking.

"As a result of the general attitude of extraversion," Jung explains (at the start of the passage you quoted), "thinking is orientated by the object and objective data."

A-a-and that's extraverted thinking that is so "orientated" — not thinking in general.

"Thinking in general" — Jung goes on to explain (in your quoted passage) — "is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions."

The "firstly" in that sentence is how introverted thinking gets fed, and the "secondly" is how extraverted thinking gets fed. As Jung explains, "Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former."

Read Jung's description of introverted thinking and you'll read about thinking that's "orientated" by subjective factors.

As Jung saw things, objective/subjective (as those terms were used in that passage you quoted) was an E/I thing, not a T/F thing.

I've been corrected already further on in the thread. Thank you. So much.

 

[andresimon]

Yeah over my head...lmao. I am as rare as you will find your to blind by personality to even see what's in front of you. Again spout stuff about me that you have no clue, but hey because you read books...I read people. You fail to impress me with your knowledge of people...but you know what...you may know mbti...see yeah book worm....I am busy reading people...instead of telling them who they are. But you know what I don't see big picture...I thought real life and reading people mattered most, but I am so glad you showed me that mbti is so much more informative. No one that knows me would have a clue I wasn't both big picture and little detal. I have fooled everyone that knows me, my job, my family, my friends. So glad I have mbti to tell me that no one can see who I am.

Bow down to the all knowing mbti lord..lmao

I'm not blinded by personality. I view everything within paradigms but I'm also smart enough to know their is no paradigm. I just use models that are useful. You are actually good at reading people. It is your 2nd function. You are probably amazing at reading people in specific situations as well. Situations and specifics would be your killer app. As far as what I said, you went from talking about Fe to yourself to Fe to yourself.

In the general, what I said is factual accurate. When it comes to you, as I said, chances are you are not as good at your inferior function as you say you are, but probably more blind to it. It is a blind spot not because you are aware of it precisely that you would be highly unaware of it. I didn't say it was impossible though and I did say you can raise up your weaknesses working THROUGH your core strengths.

Almost everyone in this thread and frankly on this site it seems would say INTP's are big picture people. When in fact they are the EXACT opposite (THE MOST ZOOMED IN OF ALL TYPES). Everyone is jumping down my throat. So you telling me that "everyone" sees you a certain way doesn't say much about the situation.

 

[reckful]

I've been corrected already further on in the thread. Thank you. So much.

Since PaladinX's post didn't address that passage in detail, and your reply to PaladinX indicated that you were still mulling things over, I decided a bit of extra analysis might be useful to you or anyone else who might have been been misled by that Jung quote (e.g., andresimon).

You're very welcome.

 

[andresimon]

So you are directing our esteemed Mr Crothers to references that are wrong? How thoughtful.

No, directing him towards things that are right. People misunderstanding and misinterpret MBTI. 99.9% percent of content on the web related to MBTI is USG (USER GENERATED CONTENT). Not experts who understand the subject matter. This site is a perfect example of that.

You are in no position to make this request, or to put this question to others, based on your contributions to this thread.

The thread is called "T's no more logical/rational than F's?" - Read the thread creators original post then visit this link: Intuition Inside: Rational and Irrational Functions and Their Attitudes.

F & T are BOTH rational functions. While S & N would be considered irrational functions. By definition he is wrong and this matter should be closed. Later the thread evolved into something else and once again what I'm stating is accurate but to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to go into every detail as to why. I explained it fairly plainly and if they are looking for another link to prove my point they won't get one because I'm referencing my own knowledge and I'm not going to go digging just to prove a bunch of nit wits that I'm accurate.

No, just intellectually irresponsible, or perhaps simply lazy. People who really have a case are usually quite pleased to make it and actually demonstrate their superior knowledge/reasoning rather than simply claim it.

Does everyone on this forum post proof for what they are claiming? Do I see you doing so on every post or argument you make? I don't think so. Are you lazy or irresponsible? "Usually quite pleased" is exactly that, USUALLY. I do when I do and I don't when I don't. Do you disagree that INTP's are the most zoomed in all of all the types? Primarily focused on situational data first through Ti? With Fe being their inferior function - hard to grasp universal principles. How is what I'm saying inaccurate?

 

[andresimon]

Since PaladinX's post didn't address that passage in detail, and your reply to PaladinX indicated that you were still mulling things over, I decided a bit of extra analysis might be useful to you or anyone else who might have been been misled by that Jung quote (e.g., andresimon).

You're very welcome.

I have not been misled by anything. T & F are both rational functions. That's what I said and that is accurate.

 

[reckful]

I have not been misled by anything. T & F are both rational functions. That's what I said and that is accurate.

I haven't read most of your posts in this thread. I was simply referring to the fact that you quoted Qlip's erroneous post and said, "Your thinking is sound."

Assuming you weren't intending to say that you thought Qlip's thinking was sound, I stand corrected.

 

[Coriolis]

No, directing him towards things that are right. People misunderstanding and misinterpret MBTI. 99.9% percent of content on the web related to MBTI is USG (USER GENERATED CONTENT). Not experts who understand the subject matter. This site is a perfect example of that.

So are you saying now that references published in print are right, by authors like Kroeger and Thuesen, Quenk, Baron, Tieger, Kummerow, etc.? But then you refer me to what appears to be "user generated content" on the web below . . .

The thread is called "T's no more logical/rational than F's?" - Read the thread creators original post then visit this link: Intuition Inside: Rational and Irrational Functions and Their Attitudes.

F & T are BOTH rational functions. While S & N would be considered irrational functions. By definition he is wrong and this matter should be closed. Later the thread evolved into something else and once again what I'm stating is accurate but to be perfectly honest, I'm not going to go into every detail as to why. I explained it fairly plainly and if they are looking for another link to prove my point they won't get one because I'm referencing my own knowledge and I'm not going to go digging just to prove a bunch of nit wits that I'm accurate.

Actually, your criticism here boils down to semantics, something which only became plain after the discussion got going. So yes - you can formulate a definition by which the OP is clearly wrong. Someone else can formulate another by which he is right. I for one prefer to look beyond the semantics to what I can learn from the general discussion. Posts like [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]'s is a good example. Put another way: it is unwise to judge a thread by its OP, though I don't find anything particularly untoward about this one. It did its job, which was to pose a question, and generate discussion. And that is more than enough justification for the thread to remain open.

Does everyone on this forum post proof for what they are claiming? Do I see you doing so on every post or argument you make? I don't think so. Are you lazy or irresponsible? "Usually quite pleased" is exactly that, USUALLY. I do when I do and I don't when I don't. Do you disagree that INTP's are the most zoomed in all of all the types? Primarily focused on situational data first through Ti? With Fe being their inferior function - hard to grasp universal principles. How is what I'm saying inaccurate?

None of the many (published in print) references I have read support this interpretation. Attention to situational data is related to Se. Ti relates to the person's internal logical framework, which often exists quite independent of any actual data. With Fe last, INTPs are much more able to grasp logical (objective) principles than subjective ones.

This is supported by my personal experience with these types, unless I know a very skewed sampling. The ISTPs I have worked with were much more focused on details than the INTPs, and I work with very many INTPs. I see my INTP SO cataloging the minutiae of something often enough, but only to give them their place in that vast internal framework he has set up. I see details, but he sees an entire world in his head, sometimes quite literally. As for zoomed-in focus, I will give him a run for his money on this any day when I get involved in a project or am trying to learn something or figure something out.

As someone (perhaps even you?) mentioned earlier: beware judging type by behavior. Every type can behave in any way. It why and sometimes how we do it that indicates our preferences. Yes, this does make it very hard to determine what someone's real type is, especially if we see them in a constrained situation, as at work.

 

[andresimon]

I haven't read most of your posts in this thread. I was simply referring to the fact that you quoted Qlip's erroneous post and said, "Your thinking is sound."

Assuming you weren't intending to say that you thought Qlip's thinking was sound, I stand corrected.

Yes, I should have said what I said in the earlier post I agreed with, which is for the most part. I did mentioned a few distinctions but I really focused on a central idea he was touching on in terms of how people view t & f. Sorry if I misled anyone. I like the approach he was taking more then what he was saying.

 

[Amargith]

That was an interesting demonstration of tertiary Te...Does it always look like that?

 

[Poki]

I'm not blinded by personality. I view everything within paradigms but I'm also smart enough to know their is no paradigm. I just use models that are useful. You are actually good at reading people. It is your 2nd function. You are probably amazing at reading people in specific situations as well. Situations and specifics would be your killer app. As far as what I said, you went from talking about Fe to yourself to Fe to yourself.

In the general, what I said is factual accurate. When it comes to you, as I said, chances are you are not as good at your inferior function as you say you are, but probably more blind to it. It is a blind spot not because you are aware of it precisely that you would be highly unaware of it. I didn't say it was impossible though and I did say you can raise up your weaknesses working THROUGH your core strengths.

Almost everyone in this thread and frankly on this site it seems would say INTP's are big picture people. When in fact they are the EXACT opposite (THE MOST ZOOMED IN OF ALL TYPES). Everyone is jumping down my throat. So you telling me that you have "everyone" sees you a certain way doesn't say much about the situation.

I don't like being stuck in a system and trapped. I create and or modify models as needed to fit what I read from life. Nothing is perfect therfore nothing should be closed off to modification. Not even MBTI or Jung.

I would disagree with zoomed in to the point of saying that IJs are the most zoomed in people. I can understand slightly due to the analness that tends to be INTP, but I still just chalk that up to anal and not zoomed in. IJs have more focus then an IP could ever want to have. It's like they get locked in, consume and you just lost any kind of big picture. It's what makes them awesome at the small details of things. Where as an IP doesn't have that desire to stay that zoomed in to one thing, we have a much more open mindset that keeps of from being as zoomed in. Zooming out can actually stress out an IJ because they can't handle that much big picture. It becomes overwhelming to them and they get back down to the details. That's why they are "rules" people, because zoomed out is to big a picture and not enough direction.

INTPS are not big picture people, they are detail oriented. The analness I mentioned above actually causes them to not be picture people, because they get hung up on the trees for the forest. The Ne they are handed for life is better at seeing possible pictures, not the big picture. There is a difference between big picture and possible pictures. Possible does not necessarily reflect big picture.

I was married to a dom Fe for 13 years, at the end of my marriage I could tell you everything little thing about her personality, she just spouted shit that anyone that knew me could see wasn't true for me, it was just general knowledge of people, but didn't apply to me. Hence the talk out of ass...general application of knowledge not related to specifice case. That's not big picture in my opinion. It's half ass picture, but it get shit done most of the time since it's "generally" true and applies most of the time. Fe and Te are general, categorizations, but due to that they are not specific and not always true and applicable. Te is more about logic...take logic with fuzziness. Fe is more about relationship kind of stuff. Hence half ass, but functional per se. More logistical then logical. Logistical is more goal driven, logic is more create a picture driven...aka what I call underatanding.

My biggest issue in life that I am working on is that I don't need to reconstruct the forest before I interact with it. I have issues with really connecting with people before I get to know them. I can't generalize worth a crap because I am to low level and I am not blind. I am so middle brained I see multiple sides and where an Fe dom shines and talks high level I can see all the issues and have a hard time because I see all the inconsistencies with it.

 

[andresimon]

So are you saying now that references published in print are right, by authors like Kroeger and Thuesen, Quenk, Baron, Tieger, Kummerow, etc.? But then you refer me to what appears to be "user generated content" on the web below . . .

It's cute how you are trying to logically argue with me when frankly you don't stand a chance in hell doing so. So let me explain. Their is plenty of SOLID work in print. The deeper and more specific you get with MBTI the less information you will find online. The bulk of the information is UGC. But, if I know something to be true AND I can find a link online to point someone in that direction then YES I will post this link to support an argument that I have gone into detail with independently of this post. The reason I mentioned UGC and links is because it is the most accessible source of information when you are typing on a forum but it is not ALWAYS useful for every situation. I could access my library and dig into my own notes about the subject matter but in the first instance I did not have to and in the second I don't fucking feel like it .

So ya, I did post UGC. And what?

Actually, your criticism here boils down to semantics, something which only became plain after the discussion got going. So yes - you can formulate a definition by which the OP is clearly wrong. Someone else can formulate another by which he is right. I for one prefer to look beyond the semantics to what I can learn from the general discussion. Posts like [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]'s is a good example. Put another way: it is unwise to judge a thread by its OP, though I don't find anything particularly untoward about this one. It did its job, which was to pose a question, and generate discussion. And that is more than enough justification for the thread to remain open.

Language is a tough nut to crack in general. We have the illusion that we understand words the same as others but we often do not. That being said, I DID look WAY beyond the semantics and I looked at the CORE of what he was TRYING TO SAY. So how you think that I'm thinking about the situation is just not accurate. He is wrong even in within his own argument but he is also wrong by definition from an MBTI lens. In this case BOTH are true. So what's interesting is that regardless of what I say you, as well as others are looking for angle to prove me wrong. The truth is, that's what you are seeking and so that is what you will TRY and do.

None of the many (published in print) references I have read support this interpretation. Attention to situational data is related to Se. Ti relates to the person's internal logical framework, which often exists quite independent of any actual data. With Fe last, INTPs are much more able to grasp logical (objective) principles than subjective ones.

So let me correct the false statements that are flying around already. And to be honest I'm partially to blame. What I said was INTP's are focused on situational data through Ti. As I mentioned before their is no partial human and so the letters and their meanings only function together. If you want to be accurate IP's are the ones that focus on SITUATIONAL DATA first. So that would be INFP, INTP, ISFP, ISTP. The F functions focus on the MEANING while the T's focus on the Usefulness. It is NOT Se thing (WTF?). You are mixing apples and oranges. What you are saying is absurdly FALSE. And if I led anyone to believe that Ti is situational data vs INTP's FOCUS ON situational data via Ti, then I apologize. I believe I was clear and accurate. INTP's use their first cognitive step to examine the specific details of a situation through Ti.

The fact that you are stating that attention to situational data is an Se thing, just shows me how bad you are at grasping these concepts. You are not worth speaking to about this subject matter anymore. Ban me, I'm sure that's your goal here anyway lmao.

 

[andresimon]

I don't like being stuck in a system and trapped. I create and or modify models as needed to fit what I read from life. Nothing is perfect therfore nothing should be closed off to modification. Not even MBTI or Jung.

I would disagree with zoomed in to the point of saying that IJs are the most zoomed in people. I can understand slightly due to the analness that tends to be INTP, but I still just chalk that up to anal and not zoomed in. IJs have more focus then an IP could ever want to have. It's like they get locked in, consume and you just lost any kind of big picture. It's what makes them awesome at the small details of things. Where as an IP doesn't have that desire to stay that zoomed in to one thing, we have a much more open mindset that keeps of from being as zoomed in. Zooming out can actually stress out an IJ because they can't handle that much big picture. It becomes overwhelming to them and they get back down to the details. That's why they are "rules" people, because zoomed out is to big a picture and not enough direction.

INTPS are not big picture people, they are detail oriented. The analness I mentioned above actually causes them to not be picture people, because they get hung up on the trees for the forest. The Ne they are handed for life is better at seeing possible pictures, not the big picture. There is a difference between big picture and possible pictures. Possible does not necessarily reflect big picture.

I was married to a dom Fe for 13 years, at the end of my marriage I could tell you everything little thing about her personality, she just spouted shit that anyone that knew me could see wasn't true for me, it was just general knowledge of people, but didn't apply to me. Hence the talk out of ass...general application of knowledge not related to specifice case. That's not big picture in my opinion. It's half ass picture, but it get shit done most of the time since it's "generally" true and applies most of the time. Fe and Te are general, categorizations, but due to that they are not specific and not always true and applicable. Te is more about logic...take logic with fuzziness. Fe is more about relationship kind of stuff. Hence half ass, but functional per se. More logistical then logical. Logistical is more goal driven, logic is more create a picture driven...aka what I call underatanding.

My biggest issue in life that I am working on is that I don't need to reconstruct the forest before I interact with it. I have issues with really connecting with people before I get to know them. I can't generalize worth a crap because I am to low level and I am not blind. I am so middle brained I see multiple sides and where an Fe dom shines and talks high level I can see all the issues and have a hard time because I see all the inconsistencies with it.

IJ's are the most zoomed out. INFJ's being THE most zoomed out. You don't understand the subject matter. You are basically stating the inverse what is true.

 

[Poki]

IJ's are the most zoomed out. INFJ's being THE most zoomed out. You don't understand the subject matter. You are basically stating the inverse what is true.

Why are IJs zoomed out? In what ways are you referring to zoomed out. I need better context then.

What is it that makes INTPs zoomed in?

 

[andresimon]

Why are IJs zoomed out? In what ways are you referring to zoomed out. I need better context then.

Honestly typing this stuff helps me solidify it in different parts of my brain so why not...

1. 4 types if information: Data & Details, Universal Principles, Actions & Consequences, Observation & Motivations of Others
2. IP's and EJ's start with sepcifics while IJs and EP's start with big picture.
3. IP's think in specific data and the details of SITUATIONS to draw conclusions.
4. IJ's think in universal principles to understand big picture trends.

People don't understand that when the framework is more SPECIFIC then it is general. People use things more liberally then what the theory suggests. But along those lines --- cognition (sorry put letters earlier, see you guys are confusing me fuck)+ environment ='s behavior. The types of people you will find are infinite but you can find patterns in how they think and what drives them.

EP's -- Watch peoples universal reactions to observe their motivations behind the actions (THAT WOULD BE MUAH)
EJ's -- Watch specific actions in order to better understand consequences.

Now why would an EJ focus on actions for consequences. Easy because they are more action oriented. The biases are support one another. We do one because we do the other. If I focus more on people the naturally people become more important to me...they become more center of attention for my focus. Granted EVERY TYPE will focus on people to some degree or another. The question is in what order, how much, to what degree. These are the distinctions of MBTI, that's what the entire thing is based around.

Most people don't have a clue what any of this shit means. I mean that's the bottom line.

 

[Poki]

Honestly typing this stuff helps me solidify it in different parts of my brain so why not...

1. 4 types if information: Data & Details, Universal Principles, Actions & Consequences, Observation & Motivations of Others
2. IP's and EJ's start with sepcifics while IJs and EP's start with big picture.
3. IP's think in specific data and the details of SITUATIONS to draw conclusions.
4. IJ's think in universal principles to understand big picture trends.

People don't understand that when the framework is more SPECIFIC then it is general. People use things more liberally then what the theory suggests. But along those lines letters + environment ='s behavior. The types of people you will find are infinite but you can find patterns in how they think and what drives them.

Like I have said many times before on here, I operate a half wavelength off from ENFP. It causes me to have a different focus on things which can and will inverse a statement like INTPs are the most zoomed in type. That is why specifics matter. I can see exactly what you say, but my perception of the world is from a different point of view.

Like I said before I can easily see an IJ becoming more consumed and obsessed... zoomed in then I can see them sitting in the high level universal principles. One guides life, but zoomed in consumes their life. This is why I believe they are more zoomed in then IP types. It's a time under tension to determine who they are. Not a specific case as in IJs think in universal principles. Most IJs I know have a tremendous amount of depth which to me is from being zoomed in. I am more of a master of all trades, but I don't have any particular specialty. To me that is zoomed out.

 

[andresimon]

Like I have said many times before on here, I operate a half wavelength off from ENFP. It causes me to have a different focus on things which can and will inverse a statement like INTPs are the most zoomed in type. That is why specifics matter. I can see exactly what you say, but my perception of the world is from a different point of view.

Like I said before I can easily see an IJ becoming more consumed and obsessed... zoomed in then I can see them sitting in the high level universal principles. One guides life, but zoomed in consumes their life. This is why I believe they are more zoomed in then IP types. It's a time under tension to determine who they are. Not a specific case as in IJs think in universal principles. Most IJs I know have a tremendous amount of depth which to me is from being zoomed in. I am more of a master of all trades, but I don't have any particular specialty. To me that is zoomed out.

That type of view is what guides almost every discussion on this forum. It is not a unique view to you. But if you want to truly understand why those things happen the way they are, then you will realize that the specifics DO matter. And in this case you are off in your specifics.

Logically you do see patterns, no questions about it, we all see similar patterns, but you are missing some much larger patterns and some less tangible details. It comes as a shock to most people that INTP's are zoomed in and focused on details. Let me explain further. An INTP may have domain expertise and expand out to a larger and larger framework. That's why our silly INTJ friend earlier mentioned his friend has "an entire world in his head" he does have an entire world. Except it isn't an entire world, it is a very specific view on the world in a very specific domain. The impact of that domain maybe significant, like launching a rocket, or discovering the underpinnings of the universe.... Could be quantum physics, but that does not mean when he goes to file his taxes, he will understand the big picture principles that guide that domain. He will look at each puzzle piece and how they conceptually fit into a larger framework. Starting with the details first and than expanding outwards. And given a new domain he will in my experience be a bit lost...I know, my best friend is an genius INTP and so is my dad. Also what is blatantly obvious to most people can be lost on an INTP. The general universal truths and principles most people can pick up on going through life, often an INTP and yes an ISTP will miss.

If our INTJ friend really wanted to learn more as he said, he would try and synthesize. My goal however is not to learn from you guys, because the things you are saying are absurd. Sorry, if it's true it's true. You are 180 degrees wrong. But that doesn't mean you are not smart or can't grasp the topic, it just means you will need to restrain your judgement a bit and try and synthesize the information that is generously being given. LOLLLLL

Symantics yada yada, details yada yada, I see it different blah blah. No the truth is, you WANT to see it different. I say A you say B, I say B you say C, I say ABC you say fuck you. Their is a deeper desire here that is hidden. And to be frank, that same dynamic happens across BILLIONS of conversations across the world on a daily basis...

 

[Poki]

That type of view is what guides almost every discussion on this forum. It is not a unique view to you. But if you want to truly understand why those things happen the way they are, then you will realize that the specifics DO matter. And in this case you are off in your specifics.

Logically you do see patterns, no questions about it, we all see similar patterns, but you are missing some much larger patterns and some less tangible details. It comes as a shock to most people that INTP's are zoomed in and focused on details. Let me explain further. An INTP may have domain expertise and expand out to a larger and larger framework. That's why our silly INTJ friend earlier mentioned his friend has "an entire world in his head" he does have an entire world. Except it isn't an entire world, it is a very specific view on the world in a very specific domain. The impact of that domain maybe significant, like launching a rocket, or discovering the underpinnings of the universe.... Could be quantum physics, but that does not mean when he goes to file his taxes, he will understand the big picture principles that guide that domain. He will look at each puzzle piece and how they conceptually fit into a larger framework. Starting with the details first and than expanding outwards. And given a new domain he will in my experience be a bit lost...I know, my best friend is an genius INTP and so is my dad. Also what is blatantly obvious to most people can be lost on an INTP. The general universal truths and principles most people can pick up on going through life, often an INTP and yes an ISTP will miss.

If our INTJ friend really wanted to learn more as he said, he would try and synthesize. My goal however is not to learn from you guys, because the things you are saying are absurd. Sorry, if it's true it's true. You are 180 degrees wrong. But that doesn't mean you are not smart or can't grasp the topic, it just means you will need to restrain your judgement a bit and try and synthesize the information that is generously being given. LOLLLLL

Symantics yada yada, details yada yada, I see it different blah blah. No the truth is, you WANT to see it different. I say A you say B, I say B you say C, I say ABC you say fuck you. Their is a deeper desire here that is hidden. And to be frank, that same dynamic happens across BILLIONS of conversations across the world on a daily basis...

I just said specifics matter, I don't know what the hell you are talking about as well as i agreed with what you saw your point of view as I see the same thing, yet you don't see what I see because it's wrong. Sriously, and you say I miss the specifcs...you are blind to so much that you don't even see because you are stuck in your paradigm, yet I can see my paradigm, your paradigm and others paradigm. The world is not about right vs wrong, if you can't look at other people's way of viewing things you will never fully understand differences in personality like you preach. Again...book smart with eyes closed to reality.

You remind me of the guy driving me nuts at work about the framework we are using, he is not ENFP at all. The know it all who spouts shit to try to get people to go in a certain direction because it's what he has been lead to believe because of the books he read. BUT he is so closed off to the big picture because all he can see is the picture the books paint. Gotta love the way people push for change?

 

[andresimon]

I just said specifics matter, I don't know what the hell you are talking about as well as i agreed with what you sawfrom your point of view as I see the same thing, yet you don't see water I see because it's wrong. Sriously, ando you say I miss the specifcs...you are blind to so much that you don't even see because you are stuck in your paradigm, yet I can see my paradigm, your paradigm and others paradigm. The world is not about right vs wrong, if you can't look at other people's way of viewing things you will never fully understand differences in personality like you preach. Again...book smart with eyes closed to reality.

You remind me of the guy driving me nuts at work about the framework we are using, he is not ENFP at all. The know it all who spouts shit to try to get people to go in a certain direction because it's what he has been lead to believe because of the books he read. BUT he is so closed off to the big picture because all he can see is the picture the books paint.

I didn't read your last post before I replied, just skimmed it and to be honest I just skimmed the last one too. Anything you say at this point is just gibberish to me. When someone says IJ's are more specifics. And then defends it after I say they are not just wrong but SOOO wrong. Anyway. Have a good night. Yes I'm stuck in a paradigm. You are right. Gosh how do I escape this paradigm that I'm stuck in. Do you tend to create a new paradigm every time someone disagrees with something you say or when you are proven wrong? TEEEHEEEEE