[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

[uumlau]

Are you talking about literature/fiction or a book of philosophical writings?

Mostly philosophical writings.

How in the world can there be agreement on what the author intended, though?

There are always some areas of disagreement, but the author's primary points are usually fairly clear.

And what is the point of trying to figure out what the author intended, when literature truly is all about interpretation? Sure, there are underlying themes that can be obvious, but there are a million ways to interpret a work of fiction, and all can be valid, given that the interpreter can use passages as support for their interpretation.

That's its own can of worms! It's mostly philosophical writings, though, so it was fairly clear what the primary points were.

That sounds an awful lot like "finding a solution" to a book rather than enjoying it for what it is, and allowing for personal interpretation. I bet many people in that class felt intellectually stifled by those rules. And some others were probably grateful they didn't have to actually think on their own, because they'd be given the "correct" answers if they'd just wait.

Sometimes finding a solution and having closure isn't the most desirable thing.

I'm sure that many felt stifled by the rules. People want to talk about what they want to talk about. The point of the class in my mind was to explore how other people think, to actually understand a perspective before feeling free to criticize it. Also I should mention this was a class for high school seniors, not college or graduate school, so a more strict format was in order, enforcing general rules of discussion so that the discussion could happen at all, not to stifle speech.

As for "solutions" and "correct answers," you are assuming too much from my neat and tidy description of the class. My point was to focus on the process of first understanding ideas in context, and then criticizing them either within their own context or based on other contexts, and I highlighted these rather than spend several paragraphs describing the ebb and flow of discussion in the class.

Let's just say we didn't find a solution to Marx's Communist Manifesto or Nietzsche's Twilight of the Gods!

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

Alright, Uumlau. I didn't realize you were an INTJ.
As such, if you disagree with anything I've said, you're probably right.
You have direct awareness of the INTJ thought process every day.

But at least you can somewhat see where I'm coming from.

 

[uumlau]

Alright, Uumlau. I didn't realize you were an INTJ.
As such, if you disagree with anything I've said, you're probably right.
You have direct awareness of the INTJ thought process every day.

But at least you can somewhat see where I'm coming from.

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, I totally get where you're coming from. I've dealt with these issues for several years (from the opposite perspective as yours), and was surprised to see how typology explained the differences in thinking I'd uncovered in practical experience.

If you're interested in more insight to INTJ-style thought, check out threads comparing Ne to Ni. Some research will make several of my descriptions more clear, and other posters of varying types have some remarkably useful perspectives, many of which differ from mine. One of the funny things about Ni is that it's really hard to pin down with words.

 

[Zarathustra]

Uumlau: you really get it.
Introvert: you still don't.

 

[MacGuffin]

Uumlau: you really get it.
Introvert: you still don't.

No need for Pness envy.

 

[Zarathustra]

No need for Pness envy.

No existence of it.

 

[MacGuffin]

No existence of it.

So narrow minded!

 

[Zarathustra]

So narrow minded!

So boxed in.

 

[Nicodemus]

Look, a bunny!

 

[MacGuffin]

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

So narrow minded!

LOL

 

[Zarathustra]

For those still making the mistake of thinking that Ti is right-brained and Ni left-brained, please see the following descriptions of right-brained and left-brained thinking, which I culled from the first site I found via Google on the matter:

Left Brain
Logical
Sequential
Rational
Analytical
Objective
Looks at parts

Right Brain
Intuitive
Holistic
Synthesizing
Subjective
Looks at wholes

 

[Craft]

For those still making the mistake of thinking that Ti is right-brained and Ni left-brained, please see the following descriptions of right-brained and left-brained thinking, which I culled from the first site I found via Google on the matter:

Left Brain
Logical
Sequential
Rational
Analytical
Objective
Looks at parts

Right Brain
Intuitive
Holistic
Synthesizing
Subjective
Looks at whores

Even the ones you did not bold are appropriate for your argument.

Ti is detailed, therefore, looks at "parts". Nitpicks, in other words.

In contrast, Ni is all about the grand whole idea.

 

[Zarathustra]

Even the ones you did not bold are appropriate for your argument.

Thank you for noticing.

I did it on purpose.

 

[freeeekyyy]

For those still making the mistake of thinking that Ti is right-brained and Ni left-brained, please see the following descriptions of right-brained and left-brained thinking, which I culled from the first site I found via Google on the matter:

Left Brain
Logical
Sequential
Rational
Analytical
Objective
Looks at parts

Right Brain
Intuitive
Holistic
Synthesizing
Subjective
Looks at wholes

Yeah, that is the typical misrepresentation...so you'd say Se is left-brained? That seems pretty much contrary to common sense.

 

[Stevo]

I don't really see why these "right-brained" and "left-brained" concepts are relevant at all. They don't really explain anything and it just seems more like woo to me than anything.

Yeah, that is the typical misrepresentation...so you'd say Se is left-brained? That seems pretty much contrary to common sense.

Most of the laws of physics run completely counter to common sense. Common sense often runs completely counter to other forms of common sense. Common sense is a horrible judge of reality.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, that is the typical misrepresentation...so you'd say Se is left-brained? That seems pretty much contrary to common sense.

Based on the mindframes stuff, T is front left, S is back left, N is front right, F is back left.

I'm not sure why you think what I quoted is a misrepresentation, nor why it's contrary to common sense -- mind explaining?

I don't really see why these "right-brained" and "left-brained" concepts are relevant at all. They don't really explain anything and it just seems more like woo to me than anything.

I actually agree here, to an extent. It's really a different topic, and, as MMR said, it really deserves its own thread.

The extent to which I don't agree is that I think finding where the functions (if the really exist in some form) take place in the brain would be awesome.

Most of the laws of physics run completely counter to common sense. Common sense often runs completely counter to other forms of common sense. Common sense is a horrible judge of reality.

Agreed.

You are an INTP I actually find very sensible and easy to talk with... I wonder why...

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Yeah, that is the typical misrepresentation...so you'd say Se is left-brained? That seems pretty much contrary to common sense.

I don't think perceptive functions can be labeled between the two.

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't think Perceptive functions can be labelled between the two. As all perceptive functions do essentially the same thing, just with different objects.

Sorry bud, but you need to go back to the drawing board with that one...

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

Sorry bud, but you need to go back to the drawing board with that one...

Thas' why I edited.