True open-mindedness is to fully understand another's thoughts, in the other's context, before applying one's own contexts.
If the manner in which I've explained an INTJ's seeming thought processes from what can be inferred isn't accurate, then I'd love someone to point that out. So far, no one has, nullifying your point.
I've often found that those most proud of their own "open-mindedness" are some of the most close-minded people I've ever met. They listen, of course (that's the open-minded part), and then tell you how everything is wrong based on their context, without demonstrating any understanding of your context. Or they pretend to agree in an "open-minded" way, to maintain the peace, but never bother to understand the point, as later conversation reveals.
It's not pride. It's honest awareness. NTP's are open to possibilities in a very broad manner, rendering the NTJ's openness to possibilities more narrow. It's not that hard to understand, there's no need to get defensive and psychoanalytical about it, and there's no need to make a giant fuss. Again, I only speak what I see as truthful. To my mind, INTJ's are less broad in their awareness of possibilities. This doesn't make them inferior; it's just something I've noticed, jeez.
Reread what you wrote above: it's rather ironically close-minded. A way of thinking that is different from yours is incapable of being open-minded merely because their boundary condition priorities differ from yours?
No. That's a horrible strawman. In fact, can't you read? You've entirely misconstrued my point. (BUTCHERED seems more appropriate.) I'm not saying INTJ's are close-minded in that they aren't open to possibilities. Again, it's a technical distinction, not some petty derogatory statement (as many of you seem to be taking it). INTJ's aren't as broad in their awareness of possibilities; they like to narrow selections down to what will work, based on what they know of the world. An NTP is very broad about possibilities (Ne) and will follow ideas all over the place, whether they will work or not. Hence, if INTJ's are "narrow-minded," then NTP's can be seen as "broad-minded." And both descriptions, even if true, can be taken wrongly. Yet, it's true. Some of us are less open to possibilities; some of us are too open to many possibilities that may not work. And this is just how we are. Hence, if I point out that an INTJ tends to be more narrow in their outlook, I'm not saying that INTP's are completely perfect in our outlook. INTP's, in general, are much too broad and speculative, and don't make enough empirical distinctions. I just don't enjoy an INTJ's approach.
Therefore, even if I personally dislike the INTJ's approach, inherently more comfortable with the INTP's approach, it doesn't make it untrue to observe that INTJ's tend to be more narrow and less broad in their approach.
One of the most useful things that understanding MBTI and Jungian functions helps with is that it points out these differing contexts. The differing contexts mean that the individuals involved actually perceive and evaluate the same information differently. They see different worlds, as it were, even though the worlds are the same. INTJs see possibilities that INTPs usually miss, and vice-versa, precisely because of the soundness vs. validity differences that Z aptly points out.
Perhaps. But more often, an INTP will play around with ideas, whereas an INTJ will likely overlook many that may have proven useful, narrowing their scope to what is pragmatic, logical, and sound. Thus, the contexts are irrelevant. Of course the different types are distinct from one another, but that doesn't make it wrong to observe those differences, unless of course stupid people want to outright assume that when someone is stating these observations honestly, that they are pointing out the flaws of other types as if their own type is entirely flawless, because that's ridiculous.
Therefore, get it through your skulls, because I don't want to have to respond to another misunderstood post like this: I'm not criticizing INTJ's from a point of view which assumes that they are somehow entirely flawed, whereas INTP's are perfect. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally prefer my own nature, and this will show when I'm speaking, but that doesn't mean I objectively and intellectually believe that it's ALWAYS better to think like an INTP, because that's nonsense. I attempt to retain objective validity when I am expressing my mind, without entirely mixing up my own thoughts on the matter. Although, I suppose it's difficult for you guys to discern what's just personal from what's objectively valid.
Thus, I will say this: I think it's pretty objectively valid that INTJ's are more narrow in their view of possibilities. In fact, Zara already admitted that INTJ's don't like wasting time on petty ideas and speculation as often as INTP's. INTJ's want to work on ideas which are worth the time, in the end. By limiting one's self to what seems to work, possibilities are left out that may be practical. [In other words, INTJ's seem to construct artificial parameters (a box) upon which they will test and compare every idea they come across, thereby ultimately judging possibilities according to their more narrow, limited, and constructed sense of what will work or not, which can be erroneously construed altogether, and this ultimate trust in their constructed box can sometimes be wrong.] And just the same, not much of practical use generally comes from an INTP's imaginative play with ideas (although, as Einstein has shown, it can sometimes lead to powerful new insights). Thus, I think this distinction is objectively valid, and if it isn't, I'd love to read something which opposes it (as I have not yet). And on top of this objective distinction, I simply add that I just don't enjoy the INTJ's approach. It's not better or worse than an INTP's approach: both have pros and cons. I just don't enjoy the INTJ approach is all.
I will acknowledge that INTJs often sound close-minded to INTPs. That's a difference in communication style. INTJs and INTPs regard different kinds of ideas as "obvious," don't mention them, and end up having fairly furious discussions until the "obvious" ideas are finally spoken and made plain to the other. However, INTPs can sound close-minded to INTJs for a different reason: there is a Ti tendency to resist evaluating ideas as quickly as an INTJ does, and this reluctance to draw a quick conclusion feels like obstinance to the INTJ, who feels like he's talking about one thing, and the INTP just changes the topic to something else.
Perhaps. From what I've noticed, an INTJ and INTP will start discussing a topic with enthusiasm and interest. Eventually, a disagreement will occur. After this point, the INTP will usually resort to Ti evaluation and possibly Ne fantasy play (in a very speculative manner), coupled no doubt with what they may know of the topic. An INTJ, on other hand, will resort to every fact they know of the topic and a well-thought-out set of arguments to point out why they are right and why the other person is in error. INTJ's argue hard, with lots of support. As it tends to happen, an INTJ may confidently and self-assuredly assert that their point is more cogent and persuasive, feeling secure that the INTP may not have quickly dealt with the argument in a very persuasive manner. The INTP, if this happens, will realize that the INTJ has prematurely evaluated the discussion and is just jumping to conclusions about his/her own arguments. After enough thought, the INTP may point out many flaws in the INTJ's reasoning, after the fact. The INTJ will usually respond to these new points with even more points (many of which may again be riddled with errors, not well thought out, but which seemingly seem logical on the surface).
And then, as I've experienced, the INTP will feel pushed into a corner, while the INTJ will feel that the INTP hasn't argued anything of substance. In this way, INTJ's seem very pushy, overly assertive, and narrow in their approach. In fact, they often have a cocky "I know I'm right, and you're definitely wrong" attitude that I find very annoying. From what I've read, INTJ's are known to be stubborn and confident in their abilities. When they think they're right, they'll make it known. Thus, INTJ's seem too serious and narrow in their approach to truth, from what I've noticed. Rather than truly seeking understanding on an issue, it seems they've already figured it out years ago and will usually discuss a topic as an expert: telling you what is and what isn't, rather than actually using creative thinking to revisit the topic from an open-minded, curious point of view. INTP's, as I've noticed, engage every discussion from a playful, enthusiastic point of view, full of curiosity and wonder, ready to possibly learn something new, or gain some new insight from it. Hence, a more laid-back and loose style that seems so open to new discussions and learning.
Therefore, I usually find the INTJ discussions to be taxing, while INTP discussions are very enjoyable. If an INTJ has a discussion with someone, it's essentially a back and forth transfer of knowledge: "Here's what I know, this is what I've found to be true. Oh, really? Well, here's what I know and what I found to be true. Cool. Where did you read that? In this cool new textbook I bought. Oh, really, wow? Neat." To me, this is boring, to just transfer knowledge on topics. An INTP conversation is more a transfer of ideas and thoughts about ideas: "Here's what I read the other day, and it got me to thinking about a few different things. So, I wonder if humans can really do X, Y, Z. What do you think? Well, I've thought about this before, and here's what I think: humans can do A, B, C. Oh, really? Sounds interesting, but I'm not so sure humans can actually do A, B, and C. It seems more valid that they'd do X, Y, Z. Let's analyze this further."
And on and on an INTP discussion will go, as the two people bounce ideas back and forth from one another in a very playful, open-minded, free sort of way, completely tolerant of each other's personal opinions, knowing full well that there's going to be a difference of opinion which should be embraced and dealt with in a very friendly, impersonal manner. INTJ's seem to want to take a discussion serious and prove the other person wrong completely, based on what they already know of the situation. Thus, it becomes a deathmatch, with an INTJ. Your ideas either survive, or they don't. With an INTP, it's like a friendly fencing duel. No one gets hurt, but perhaps someone learns a thing or two from the interaction. At least, that's how I see it.