[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

[Haight]

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

Good one.

Inanimate objects cannot be "dated."

 

[FigerPuppet]

Good one.

Inanimate objects cannot be "dated."

You're hilarious, Haight. When will you perform in the Apollo Theater?

 

[VagrantFarce]

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.

But I'm not trying to reinterpret anything!

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.

You accuse me of "playing semantics", of "trying to create a simple answer to a complex issue", whereas all I'm trying to do is regurgitate and clarify (and in the process, understand) an existing system for the benefit of others. You seem to be taking the stance that I have some new theory of mine to prove to the rest of the world, that I have a burning desire to solve the typology problem once and for all, whereas instead all I'm doing is asking for feedback on whether what I wrote accurately describes an existing system. I go with common assumptions about the system, because that allows me to explore, understand and describe it for the benefit of others.

To someone first expressing an interest with the MBTI, it's hard to tell the difference between the INTP and INTJ from generalised type descriptions. So I figured I'd write a guide to help people understand the difference, since according to the mechanics of the system there is one; it's just a case of finding the right words to express that difference.

You're acting like Jaguar, who's uninterested in joining a hypothetical discussion unless he's able to dismiss the whole ordeal as "short-sighted" or something equally contemptuous. "Pfft, you guys are stupid. You don't actually believe this crap do you? ".

 

[Jaguar]

You're acting like Jaguar, who's uninterested in joining a hypothetical discussion unless he's able to dismiss the whole ordeal as "short-sighted" or something equally contemptuous. "Pfft, you guys are stupid. You don't actually believe this crap do you? ".

I applaud your username. It suits you: Farce.

I go with common assumptions

I may vomit, momentarily.

 

[matmos]

"Pfft, you guys are stupid. You don't actually believe this crap do you? ".

The question is not what anyone else believes...

When you propound an idea/theory/proposition/position/regurgitation/clarification - call it what you will - someone is bound not to agree.

Your reaction questions: a) Your ability to present a coherent theory once the wolves come knocking; b) Whether you are seriously concerned about any feedback that could be used to modify or better the theory (or just ditch it); or whether you just want to spout off.

In engineering, stress is used to test integrity. This extends to other arenas.

That's the way it is, kiddo.

Cheers.

 

[Gewitter27]

This is easy to understand.

An INTP will make plans to build an enormous robot in a very cheap manner, one that could be used to take over the world, but will get bored before he/she finishes it. An INTJ will do the same, except he/she WILL finish it and utilize it.

 

[Spamtar]

I think you did a pretty good job with your summary. I liked it because it took some complex ideas and broke them down into rather easily explainable terms.

Don't get frustrated with the INTJs testing your theory (regardless if they do it in a less than F(e) manner); if you can stick with it and them it will tend to improve, flesh out and tighten up your theory/summation of your understanding.

Whether they (the INTJs) ultimately agree with your theory or not (since you an INTP are comparing your type with their type expect some bias and competitiveness on their part) is not where the benefit comes from...where the benefit comes from you understanding what they are saying and attempting on answering instead of just getting frustrated.

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

I think you did a pretty good job with your summary. I liked it because it took some complex ideas and broke them down into rather easily explainable terms.

Don't get frustrated with the INTJs testing your theory (regardless if they do it in a less than F(e) manner); if you can stick with it and them it will tend to improve, flesh out and tighten up your theory/summation of your understanding.

Whether they (the INTJs) ultimately agree with your theory or not (since you an INTP are comparing your type with their type expect some bias and competitiveness on their part) is not where the benefit comes from...where the benefit comes from you understanding what they are saying and attempting on answering instead of just getting frustrated.

Well said.

Farce,

I think in the initial summary there was a part left out about INTJ's being a royal pain in the arse when they smell a theory that might have gaps. I hate to say you should feel flattered by their attention... but that's kind of how it goes. If they didn't think it was worth arguing about, they wouldn't be aggravating you so relentlessly.

I liked the summary overall, but I do think there are some gaps in the understanding of INTJ's. The others may be picking up on this, and taking issue with it because a NON INTJ is telling them 'what' they are or should be. People with a strong sense of self (and boneheads like us who "study" peculiar phsychology) can and will pick apart something that is supposed to be 'defining' who they are if they feel its innacurate.

Use their criticism constructively. Use it to refine your definitions and then invite them to tear it down again. The more times that happens, the fewer faults they'll be able to find and the better it will get.

That's what we're good at. "Its not personal... its business"... and nothing says "Business" like a new theory that needs tearing apart.

 

[VagrantFarce]

"Here is my attempt at clarifying someone else's system!"
"Your system makes no sense."
"Why are you attributing it to me?! "
"Pfft, you just can't handle criticism."

 

[Haight]

No one is reading what I said in my last post

Wrong again.

I read it and did this:

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

"Why are you attributing it to me?! "

Well... really when you try to re-write another idea (IE Clarify) ... it becomes a whole new 'theory'... thus, yours.

 

[Montag]

Why so much bitching? I really don't get it. I lost interest after about 2.5 pages. I don't know who originally wrote the initial post, but I found it highly informative. I understand INTJ's and INTP's better than any other types, and I thought the descriptions of the functions were spot-on. In fact, I've never been able to find a good description of what exactly is meant by dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions, so for me the original post was highly informative.

 

[Kristiana]

INTJs
Things that don't quite make sense can be our most valuable tools.

INTJs are decisive, creative planners who love to turn bizarre ideas into plans of action. These are the left-brain thinkers who might find the directionless, armchair discussions of an INTP almost insufferable. INTJs have a much more pragmatic view of the world, one that is driven by their internal intuition. Where an INTP's ideas might come from what reality presents them moment-to-moment, an INTJs intuition is more mysterious and out of their control. This leads some practitioners to playfully stereotype INTJs as having bizaare psychic or premonitionary powers, of which they have no control of and have no recourse but to act as vessels thereof. It was likely an INTJ who first conceived of things like the wheel, or the internal combustion engine. For the INTJ, reality is dictated by premonition.

in depth

The bolded parts are especially true about me

I'm not left-brain dominant though, I have taken several tests on this and have always come up balanced. Very high N + ITJ adds up to having a high right brain potential as well as the usual left brain abilities, I guess

 

[Twixt]

I like the descriptions of the functions! (dom aux tert inf i mean) Good, don't see these elsewhere on the net. Thanks for sharing.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Well... really when you try to re-write another idea (IE Clarify) ... it becomes a whole new 'theory'... thus, yours.

But there isn't anything new in the OP, these are the mechanics of the system. Just because I re-worded it to help people understand it doesn't mean I changed anything or injected theories of my own. I'm not trying to reinvent anything here, I'm just trying to help people understand what has already been described.

Besides, this whole argument has been about how the MBTI or archtypal thinking seems to be a waste of time, rather than if what I wrote seems like an accurate description of the two seperate types. It's just been one massive derail.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

It was likely an INTJ who first conceived of things like the wheel, or the internal combustion engine.

This sentence bothers me because it doesn't take into account the difference between INT's and ENT's. Technology developed by INTJ's usually represents advances in science or entirely new ways of thinking, while ENT's develop technology for its own sake. For example Newton (INTJ) developed the first reflecting telescope to demonstrate his superior knowledge of optics. The first written alphabets were probably created by INTJ's because this represents an entirely new ways of thinking.

On the other hand an internal combustion engine doesn't really represent an advancement of science as much as an advancement of technology. It took several known scientific principals and put them together for an entirely pragmatic purpose. It's the sort of thing that would be interesting to ENT's, much more so than INT's. It was probably developed by an ENTP, with ENTJ being the next most likely type.

 

[krunchtime]

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) prompts us to consider the feelings of other people in the community, and the shared vocabulary we use to express those feelings. It is similar to Te in that it creates an objective, controlling outlook on life. But instead of dealing with impersonal measurement, it deals with matters of emotional value and concerns itself with social roles and taboos. In the inferior position, INTPs might find it hard to truly connect with people emotionally, and often prefer the company of people who share the same impersonal interests that they do. They might find it hard to trust their emotional side, and might find it easier to treat other people with the same impersonal analysis as everything else. They might dismiss social behaviour as mindless group-think or sheep-like, thus preventing themselves from participation. Healthy INTPs are able to overcome these limitations with Ne; the irrational, perceiving and creative behaviour of Ne helps them to open up, to find new ways of emotive expression for themselves and others.

Good I'm justified, although I didn't realise it at first. As an observer, I tend to see INTJs as more inwardly self-confident. I think the Ni-Fi gives an edge in terms of trusting inner intuition and reading signals, but I also tend to see Fi-Se peregrinated from dominant Ni-Te.

 

[The Decline]

Thanks for writing this up, VagrantFarce.

 

[poppy]

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.

I don't know, maybe VF can correct me but I was under the impression that by "natural" he did not mean "inborn", and that nurture would also have been factored into their descriptions. I don't think VF was trying to propose that the personality is formed in the absence of external influences. I don't think he was making any suggestions about the formation of personality at all, as I don't see any such thing in the OP. I think his purpose was to write up a comparison of the two types in the style of alllll the other type descriptions, so attributing some "nature vs nurture" argument to him seems unfair. (Also, I'm just curious, I assume this is a problem that you have with all type descriptions? Because his isn't particularly different from say, typelogic.com or personalitypage or whatever.)

Of course with VF's description you run into problems, as one always does with type descriptions. Like Misty Mountain Rose said, there are unique influences that could affect the way an individual behaves externally. But for a general type description it's about impossible to take all of those things into account.

 

[Economica]

Haight, I'd (still) appreciate a yes or no to my question of whether this has been one of those times where you enjoy my disagreement?

Good one.

Inanimate objects cannot be "dated."

Fact: He was alive at the outset.