Woah PT, you've had some seriously bad experiences at the hands of some crazy N's by the sounds of it...
Not so much
Ok, well, I have
But I meant that I don't mean that every N is a fringe case that drives me nuts. Only in particular cases where the N is strong, and they are stubborn.
The difference depends on the situation!
Ah yes, your research and facts would've been very very welcome in the bullying thread, I can tell you that. By me, at least, obviously I can't speak for anyone else but ... you're wrong though that this really is always the end of the discussion. If 'the facts' were always the end of a discussion then nobody would ever go in search of NEW facts.
They would be welcome now, but they generally are *not* reflected upon if I simply put out the data. I don't mean this as a bad thing, or a comment beyond what it says. My style is particular and I know it. And really, what is the point of just delivering information? I mean, there are textbooks of information that could explain it all, so at some point the answer would just be "read thousands of pages of theories and data instead of talk about it". All it does is interrupt the flow of thought, but that flow of thought here is very N. I have a very different response when I'm at a hobby forum, or DIY forum. There, actual solutions and data is like a glass of water.
That's mostly what I'm highlighting - not that we don't both theorize, just that we do it in different amounts/times. And since it is only the differences being talked about, it sounds like fringe cases, and seems larger than it is. Most of us are likely pretty balanced individuals, but that doesn't mean the gap in preferences don't come out.
Besides, the difference is related. It's like type 1 and type 2 statistical errors. You gain more coverage, at the expense of less defined theories. I gain more defined theories, but at the expense of coverage.
(The big ones for me are bullying, IQ and stereotyping - since I care very much about those topics, things tend to go downhill when I impose
)
I just can't help thinking when I hear things like that, you know, sure, that's what people said about the sun going round the earth once...
Exactly. But at the same time, I don't really want you to (common stereotype) be working with my engine and theorizing on new designs at the same time. And it doesn't mean you couldn't work on an engine, or that I couldn't theorize the design of one.
It's just that there will be more cases where I would rather not be designing an engine, and more cases where you don't want to be talking about dismantling (x) engine.
Even though we do use both and both serve a function, it doesn't mean that we serve it well together/same situations/etc. And both taken too far (ie: the earth is supported by a giant turtle a few elephants)... it doesn't work either.
But there's always room for doubting those things, for me.
Oh, we are both still Ps, believe me. There is no clear line to draw - each person is different. That's the price of a generality.
I can handle abstractions and imperfect theories - MBTI comes to mind
But that doesn't matter too much to me because (as I'm sure we both do) I also don't have a problem defining the limits of a theory, and simply not using it.
And we are both very similar in the whole impulse-thinky way. One day I'll be designing my Wii project, the next designing water fountains, then sketching personal submarines. In a literal "this month" kind of way... but I'm similar with the projects I have in the physical world (which all of those lead into).I am not, however, generally looking at abstract concepts. I'm designing circuits, not religion. I'm not reading about MBTI, I'm reading marketing psychology. I don't care about naval architecture, I care about getting my sub underwater with me in it (saftey optional!).
In each of those cases, when an INTP says "wouldn't it be cool", I want to stop them and ask - we'll talk about this, but first, can it be built now? Should I take you seriously?
What if one of my 10% was a cure for AIDS?
Which one...? Want to try all of the different theories on humans to find out?
This is just to relate to the type 1 and 2 errors in statistics
oh yeah and... I didn't really wanna go into it a great deal unless others felt it was warranted, but there is a lot of research that's been done into the intuition process and how in fact, perhaps it has more basis in fact than given credit for... y'know, the idea of subconsciously taken-in data that the brain sifts through on a subconscious level to reach an instant conclusion that you 'just know', without being able to explain why?
This is where I break out Step II to talk about defining intuition within the context of MBTI
And by that, I mean, intuitive by MBTI doesn't have to mean 'intuitive'. If anything, 'intuitive' means 'smart P', and I might even say "experience" rather than that.
I would hazard a guess that once you remove ability (IQ) from the equation, preferences would show better 'in tunement' (bwahah) along the items they are most familiar with. Small intuitive leap, right?
But really, I wouldn't be trusting intuition in probability, nor when taking apart my engine for the first time. But I would trust a mechanic telling me something, but he doens't know what, is wrong with my car just by looking at it.
Doesn't the scientific method itself begin with a theory
I think it normally begins with an observation, because the fundamental requirement for science to be science is to have a
testable hypothesis. That is, it has to explain something, which is normally an observation first.
