[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

[VagrantFarce]

You are playing with semantics and attempting to have it both ways. If it's "yes" . . . then it's yes.

I'm not playing semantics, it's a common assumption when considering typology and happens to be what I think. I think that people have a natural way of thinking, behaving and acting that they find most comfortable, and that certain pressures i.e. work, school or just general peer-pressure tend to force us to consider ways of thinking or behaving that don't come naturally. Doesn't mean we can't act that way or we will never be good at that sort of thinking, it's quite the contrary. Whether it's hard to pinpoint that natural behaviour would depend on the individual, and is ultimately up to the individual during their process of self-discovery.

 

[Haight]

Whether it's hard to pinpoint that natural behaviour would depend on the individual, and is ultimately up to the individual during their process of self-discovery.

Among other things, I don't think you understand the developmental process as it relates to childhood. We do not have the choices that you are assuming we do.

As is the case with your answer to my post, you are trying to create a simple answer to a complex issue while sweeping all the variables under the rug.

Let me ask you a question. If we were to give an average percentage to what portion of our personalities are developed via nurture versus that which is innate - ie., "Natural" - what numbers would you come up with?

 

[tinkerbell]

my 2ps worth... J nor P is dominated by one brain type... I'm very creative, and a P type but I use my left brain a lot... so I doubt I spend most of my time in left brain mode....

Misty, the INTJ's not being playful is a misquote... I said their jokes weren't funny, which was translated into not playful... they are playful.... just sulk at jokes.

I'd say INTP = are cuddlier in some ways and INTJ are more contrained....

 

[VagrantFarce]

Among other things, I don't think you understand the developmental process as it relates to childhood. We do not have the choices that you are assuming we do.

What choices am I assuming?

Let me ask you a question. If we were to give an average percentage to what portion of our personalities are developed via nurture versus that which is innate - ie., "Natural" - what numbers would you come up with?

I couldn't even being to presume.

If you're trying to prove something, could you do it constructively? You just seem to be just making a lot of assumptions about me and then sniping at what I write without offering anything of value.

 

[Haight]

How old are you?

 

[Economica]

(...) If you're trying to prove something, could you do it in a constructive way? You just seem to be sniping at what I write without offering anything of value.

My thoughts when reading this: Haight has issues with his type; he is INTP but wants to be INTJ. Your OP is therefore uncomfortable for him.

On-topic: INTJs get personal in discussions; INTPs don't.

Edit: ... And then I saw the post before this one. Nice try, Haight!

 

[Haight]

On-topic: INTJs get personal in discussions; INTPs don't.

Once again, your observations are wrong.

 

[Economica]

Once again, your observations are wrong.

I can't tell; is this one of those times where you enjoy my disagreement?

 

[VagrantFarce]

How old are you?

I'd rather not keep feeding your assumptions, not until you actually enter into the debate and offer something of value, instead of sniping from the back row. Get to the point and explain whatever it is you're trying to explain, instead of just trying to prove how wrong I am. I'm here to learn, not defend my absolute unchangeable theory of everything.

 

[Haight]

I'd rather not keep feeding your assumptions, not until you actually enter into the debate and offer something of value, instead of sniping from the back row. Get to the point and explain whatever it is you're trying to explain, instead of just trying to prove how wrong I am. I'm here to learn, not defend my absolute unchangeable theory of everything.

I already explained. Please re-read my position.

This is simple. You made a claim. I refuted your claim. And now you are dodging my observations and questions by ignoring what I wrote. Which is fine of course, but that's not how to learn.

 

[Haight]

I can't tell; is this one of those times where you enjoy my disagreement?

Actually, all three of your observations are false.

And I'd rather not make this about me, although I appreciate your efforts.

 

[Economica]

Actually, all three of your observations are false.

Three? I count two in my first post above. Which observation did I make in my second? I thought I asked a question.

And I'd rather not make this about me, although I appreciate your efforts.

It's not about you, it's about me (it's always about me). If you were an INTJ, you would have known where it would hurt!

 

[Haight]

My thoughts when reading this: Haight has issues with his type; he is INTP but wants to be INTJ. Your OP is therefore uncomfortable for him.

On-topic: INTJs get personal in discussions; INTPs don't.

Edit: ... And then I saw the post before this one. Nice try, Haight!

1) "... he is INTP but wants to be INTJ." - I make no efforts to be anything other than what I am. Because to be frank, I love myself just the way I am.
2) "Your OP is therefore uncomfortable for him." False. If something made me uncomfortable, I'd avoid it.
3) "INTJs get personal in discussion; INTPs don't. " I don't see why I would take anything in this thread personally. It's just a thread.

Now go away. You're derailing the thread.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I already explained. Please re-read my position.

This is simple. You made a claim. I refuted your claim. And now you are dodging my observations and questions by ignoring what I wrote. Which is fine of course, but that's not how to learn.

You haven't refuted anything of my creation -- I'm not sure we even disagree! You just keep accusing me of doing things I'm not doing, or accusing me of not knowing something without telling me what I don't know! You're being vague, accusive and assumptive, and I'm trying desperately to figure out what is causing it. You point your finger at "my theory", when all I'm doing is trying to clarify and understand the MBTI itself!

 

[Jaguar]

How old are the kids in this thread?

 

[Economica]

1) "... he is INTP but wants to be INTJ." - I make no efforts to be anything other than what I am. Because to be frank, I love myself just the way I am.
2) "Your OP is therefore uncomfortable for him." False. If something made me uncomfortable, I'd avoid it.
3) "INTJs get personal in discussion; INTPs don't. " I don't see why I would take anything in this thread personally. It's just a thread.

Okay, I counted the two about you as one. But in that case you didn't answer my question, at least not as unambiguously as I'd like. If it's "no" . . . then it's no, right?

Now go away. You're derailing the thread.

It's not like you need me telling you what to do.

FYI: I'd stay and argue, but I have a date!

 

[matmos]

I'd stay and argue, but I have a date!

Does it take a date to stop you arguing... Sounds a bit like sexual frustration.

Go on, stay and argue.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Just when I was beginning to think this forum was friendly and productive...

 

[matmos]

Just when I was beginning to think this forum was friendly and productive...

That's another absurd generalisation.

Stop it. Before it becomes a problem.

 

[Haight]

You haven't refuted anything of my creation -- I'm not sure we even disagree! You just keep accusing me of doing things I'm not doing, or accusing me of not knowing something without telling me what I don't know! You're being vague, accusive and assumptive, and I'm trying desperately to figure out what is causing it. You point your finger at "my theory", when all I'm doing is trying to clarify and understand the MBTI itself!

Just a few last points before I go back to work:

a/ I assumed you wrote the OP since that's what you stated in the OPs opening paragraph. The OP is an attempt to take a portion of MBTI theory and reinterpret a few pieces of it in your own words and from your own viewpoint. Therefore, it is yours.
b/ I'm not accusing you of doing anything you haven't done. So feel free to go back read and answer the questions I already presented.
c/ My personality is causing it. And if you could correct your theory, I'd be able to be more specific with that point.
d/ When one takes an existing theory and adds personal observations to it . . . then it becomes "yours," or your theory.
e/ Once again, my point is simple: Your theory ignores the powerful impact of nurture. To say that you can determine ones "Natural" personality by simply looking beyond nurture, because doing so is a simple process that can be done be reading and comprehending a few bullet points, is to not have a full understanding of how profound the influence of external forces have on the development of our personalities.

Capiche?

Anyway, I got to go. Thanks for the good time.