I have not examined enough INTPs or INTJs to have any degree of certainty discussing their differences in such a specific way. I will, however, add a bit of information about myself to provide further data.
Firstly, I am not accustomed to searching for evidence to prove something for which I haven't already had quite a bit of evidence in the first place. I believe this stems from a need not to come to conclusions, but to learn. I find it sufficient to study something, without having the agenda of closure, and thus do not have any conclusions to prove until I have become so familiar with something so as to have those conclusions become almost perfectly transparent. On occasion there are ideas for which I do not have adequate evidence, and typically I will begin to look at things from several different venues to focus in on the underlying qualities; however, it doesn't really matter to me that I gather enough evidence to prove something absolutely, only that I prove it sufficiently for myself.
On those occasions when conclusions are not reached from personal observation, but are presented to me through communication (e.g. someone tells me something s/he believes to be truth, from observations s/he has made), and the conclusions presented conflict with my own conceptions, I tend to respond in a rather linear format: I will begin by presenting my understanding, based upon the information available. If this information changes his/her opinion, there is usually no more need for discussion about the matter. If it does not, I ask questions to pinpoint the reasons behind the difference of opinion. If through these questions our understanding of the matter becomes singular, then there is no more need for discussion. If it does not, I concede for lack of knowledge, and depending on interest will either study the issue myself or do nothing more with the subject. Again, I am not in the habit of coming to a conclusion first and then finding evidence for it later.
On those rare occasions when I must absolutely prove or disprove something, usually in an academic setting, I approach the issue systematically and with no attachment to either side. Of course I will have a hunch that leads me to test some things before others, and of course for brevity's sake I want those hunches to be proven true, but apart from an annoyance that I have to spend more time on something, I do not have any emotional need to have my hunches be correct.
I hope this helps.
In other words, "Don't mud-wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, too, and the pig enjoys it.""Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, the kind of approach.I think this is intended to reflect the kind of attitude the theoretical (<- this is a very important distinction IMO) INTJ and INTP when it comes to learning about an object of interest. I don't think uumlau intends to define what either party is necessarily interested in investigating; I don't think he/she intends to indicate/imply any limitations about either party's "research methods" either.
Bottom line is: I think uumlau's parallel was a reasonably good one, when it comes to describing how your average INTJ or INTP usually approaches an idea/object of interest.
I'm not impressed with your reasoning, here. I necessarily chose a simple object so as to make the analogy clear. The more complicated the topic, the more one gets lost in the explanation and the less likely the analogy is going to be clear. Even as it was, the analogy wasn't as clear as it could be, but I needed some degree of intricacy while keeping it simple enough that readers wouldn't get lost. I do note, however, that as much as you disliked the analogy, you immediately got the point the "is" vs "does" difference, which is all I needed it to do. Any analogy breaks if you take it too far.I think it is a poor example because of the depth of understanding needed in each case.
A capable 9-yr old can figure out how to use a watch, while dissecting the mechanics, physics, and inner dimensions of a watch is a much more difficult course of study.
As such, I think it's a rather poor analogy; substitute something like quantum mechanics, and the difference between INTJs wanting to figure out how to apply it, and INTPs just wanting to figure it out, well, yes, then the analogy is suitable; but a watch? Not so much.
Hence, my critique, in which I said that the key difference really seems to be that INTJs seem to be interested in learning things only if they (might) fit into their larger vision, while INTPs seem to be interested in learning things solely for the sake of learning.
uumlau said:INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics).
I don't think this describes the INTJ vs INTP difference well at all. It's sort of true, but it's not good enough that an INTx could read it and suddenly realize, "Oh, I'm really an INTJ!" (Or INTP.) More academically-oriented INTJs will be perceived as the latter (and might even perceive themselves as such), while INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics). That's why I was looking more at process than particular goals.
The INTJ process is to think in terms of uses and functionality: this is how Murray Gell-Mann figured out quarks. He knew that the results of particle collisions had to be explained by an underlying structure/process, and used group theory to figure out what kind of underlying functionality could cause the results as seen. There was no way to logically prove his quark guess: he had to infer what was "really going on" behind the scenes. We know the quark model is true because it predicted new particles. In the end, we still don't know what quarks "really are," we just know that the math works based on what we see. This is the exact same kind of thinking that I was describing that "any 9-year old" could do with a watch. But now, anyone reading this is getting lost in the explanation of quarks.
The INTP process is more concerned that everything known fits in with everything else. Quarks, for example, don't really fit in because it's kind of like making up a fairy tale to explain science: in fact, Gell-Mann was afraid to publish until his theory actually made some predictions. Einstein, on the other hand, took a lot of knowledge that was already out there, and put it together just slightly differently and more self-consistently. Lorenz had already figured out the time/space weirdness, the speed of light was already regarded as a universal constant, and the scientific community had studied electromagnetism extensively by the time Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper. What was Einstein's essential contribution? He showed that it could all still fit together and make sense even if you dropped the "luminiferous ether" from the explanation of electromagnetic theory. Everything else he ever wrote on the subject of relativity, including general relativity, derived from the core postulates of the constant speed of light and that physics needed to work the same in any frame of reference. Quantum mechanics never "fit in" insofar as his worldview was concerned: he was sure that something else was going on that only looked random.
Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding. At least, this is where the talents lie, and how the thinking process of each works in general: both are capable of following the others' path for a while, but feels like "more work" to both of them, thus the tendency to stick to one's core talents.
Perhaps you need to get a little less sensitive, and just recognize a question for a question, and a statement for a statement.
So, I imagine we can all just move on to more important matters.
...to your clearly patronizing post...
I'm going to say "doubtful", but we'll see. *crosses fingers*
Your incessant passive-aggressiveness doesn't increase those chances.
What are you so butt-hurt about? That I called your earlier post a misconception?
I've never said a single negative thing pointed in your direction.
I wish Neobick had kept his response from last night.
My advisor was quite like this, and as Zarathustra observed, he wasn't a great manager. He was, however, an outstanding scientist and a truly honorable man, which is more than I can say for some of the faculty at my university. It was a real pleasure working with him, and we still stay in touch though he is retired now and I have been working professionally for awhile. My SO is INTP also, so I have had lots of experience with the pluses and minuses of this type relative to an INTJ.Yeah, we're usually not trying to set the agenda for others. It's hard enough staying on our own agenda, let alone managing the agenda of 5 or 10 others. The approach that NTP's take to leadership is usually: I'm going to show you how to do it properly and/or make sure you get the right training. After that, you're expected to make it happen. Make yourself competent. When we are in a new position, we only expect people to give us "basic training" and then we want freedom and space to figure out the rest - to operate fairly autonomously. And so we kind of expect the same from others when they work for us.
NTP's have a very "hands-off" approach to managing others. We expect you to pick up your own slack and to function at a very high level. Sometimes it's good cuz people who like to work independently enjoy that freedom and total lack of micromanagement. Other times it's bad (really bad) cuz people come to us for guidance/leadership and we're like, "Why are you asking me? I have stuff to do. Figure it out!" And yeah, we're really bad with deadlines. If I don't keep a list, I forget stuff.
FYP. (And pissed on it a bit )INxJINTx pissing contest.
@ INTPs going swimming with their watches on.Let's say an INTP and an INTJ are studying a wrist watch. Let's even allow them to have multiple copies so that they can take it apart or otherwise experiment and they can still get a working watch at the end of the process.
The INTP will go in, analyze the circuitry, research electrical engineering, wafer chip design, etc., and come away with a complete logical understanding of the mechanisms of the watch and how it all works together to keep track of the time.
The INTJ will go in and try to figure out how the watch works. He'll push buttons, set the time, program alarms, all with a mind to understanding the watch's functionality, what it means when it says a particular time, and what it's useful for. He might even expose it to temperature extremes to see whether it changes the rate of timekeeping compared to a control watch, or see how resistant the watch is to being under water at various depths.
In the end, the INTP knows what the watch is, far better than the INTJ. He can tell you how it was made, the underlying logic of the circuitry, and probably have several ideas for "improving" the watch, e.g., make it even more accurate than it is.
The INTJ will know what the watch does far better than the INTP. He will understand its capabilities and its limitations. He'll know that he needs to remove it if he goes swimming, because the water test failed, and that it runs about 5 seconds per month faster than an atomic clock, so after a year he'll have to wind it back one minute.
INTP problem-solving is really about synthesis, yes. This is how Ne works, finding connections between previously unrelated ideas. This is how most knowledge and understanding progresses - by way of analogy.Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding.
Truth ^10!With INTP's, there is truth and then there is everything else. It's more of a passive approach in that we see the truth as something that is out there to be explored. We're not trying to change the truth or forge into new territory necessarily - we just want to understand truth as it is.
The INTP doesn't want to (or has a hard time) choosing just one subject to explore because he wants to explore truth as a "whole". If I go get a Ph.D. in Physics, then I feel like I'm abandoning the arts, World History, Psychology, Business, Nutrition and Physical Education, spirituality, and everything else that encompasses "truth". I want to explore it all as a whole. I'm not interested in picking one of those things and making it "my own personal expertise". I want to be knowledgeable on all of it.
INTP wants to understand truth. It is what it is, we don't want to change it or manipulate it. We see it as unchangeable, and so we just want to understand it in all it's complexity.
I think you were right first time around. Te is too rigid to be good for troubleshooting/firefighting. INTPs are excellent troubleshooters. Ps definitely have the advantage when it comes to flying by the seat of our pants. It's our only advantage! At least let us have that.Js are more stable in pursuit of a goalbut Ps are better at troubleshooting when things are going wrong.Js help Ps be more focused and Ps help Js expand.
edit, @strike - per uumlau's mention - was attributing that to P because it's true that NFPs are generally better troubleshooters than NFJs, but probably Te is better at troubleshooting.
INTJ wants to figure out this watch. (concrete example of a solution to a real world problem)
INTP wants to figure out watchmaking (abstract, ideal solution to a hypothetical problem)
Actually, Te is rather concrete, due to being extroverted. I (mis)tested as ISTJ several times, and thus dismissed MBTI as meaningless twaddle for a long while. It turns out that questions like "do you prefer concrete facts or abstract theory?" strike a false dichotomy for INTJs. Ni is abstract, Te is (logically/logistically) concrete. I need concrete information to form correct and meaningful abstract theories. The main difference between INTJ and INTP in this regard is that the INTJ is internally intuitive, coming up with ideas and perspectives to understand a given set of data logically (Te). The INTP is internally logical (Ti), reaching externally for new ideas (Ne) to add to the internal logical model.
An ISTJ does something rather different: the evaluation of external data (Te) leaves a concrete subjective impression (Si), which in turn yields a comparison of current data to past data and a tendency to use consistent, reliable solutions. Ni doesn't compare so much to past data and facts, but more to past understandings of functionality. Very simplistically, Si says, "this is the same as that was, so it should work the same," while Ni says, "this works like these other things in most ways, so maybe it works like one of them in other ways." (Forgive the vagueness - a short explanation of Ni is necessarily vague, and while a long explanation of Ni might be more clear, it is often too long. )
If all that is true (?), it would explain why we seem to have our head in the clouds more. Because, as you said, our logic is mostly internal. It's below the surface and it's hidden, at least in large part. And on the outside (if we are using Ne), we come off as goofy, whacky, head in the clouds. With you guys, it's kind of the other way around. Endless possibilities on the inside, but what people see on the outside is very structured, focused, and logical.
OK, yeah, so Te likes to deal in the concrete. But, you said Te is concrete because it is extroverted. Ne is also extroverted, but not always concrete. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe Ne is more concrete than I think.
The picture I'm getting from all of this is that INTP's take in A LOT via Ne and then try to reduced it/simplify it/understand it through Ti. We take in a TON of information and connections and at least attempt to reduce it into this neat, tidy, internal construct so that it's easily retained and easily understandable.
INTJ's, on the other hand, have A LOT of internal ideas and theories and then try to narrow it/simplify it/execute it through Te. You have a TON of information and possibilities internally and then attempt to execute it/carry it out/test it in the real, concrete world.
If all that is true (?), it would explain why we seem to have our head in the clouds more. Because, as you said, our logic is mostly internal. It's below the surface and it's hidden, at least in large part. And on the outside (if we are using Ne), we come off as goofy, whacky, head in the clouds. With you guys, it's kind of the other way around. Endless possibilities on the inside, but what people see on the outside is very structured, focused, and logical.
Extraverted intuition is not really about taking in information though. It's what you do with the information after you've taken it in. So it isn't 'extraverted' in the way that Te is - directed towards making a tangible impact on one's environment. The stuff Ne comes up with (essentially connections) is internally generated. It is created by the individual, not a product of the environment, even though something in the environment may have set the train in motion. It is perception, but it's internal perception - seeing with the inner eye. That's how I see it anyway.OK, yeah, so Te likes to deal in the concrete. But, you said Te is concrete because it is extroverted. Ne is also extroverted, but not always concrete. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe Ne is more concrete than I think.
The picture I'm getting from all of this is that INTP's take in A LOT via Ne and then try to reduced it/simplify it/understand it through Ti. We take in a TON of information and connections and at least attempt to reduce it into this neat, tidy, internal construct so that it's easily retained and easily understandable.
Yep, that's exactly it.
Ne is more concrete than Ni, but that isn't saying much.
It's sort of like Jung came up with three different concepts of objective/subjective dichotomies: T/F, S/N, e/i. Te and Se are, in this sense, the "most objective" while Ni and Fi are the most subjective, and then there's four that are mixtures of objective and subjective. INTPs have the mixed ones, Ti/Ne/Si/Fe, while INTJs have the "unmixed" ones, Ni/Te/Fi/Se.