• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ok lets settle this right now!

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Why is it that INTJs are thought of as more analytical than INTPs, and INTPs more creative?

Because INTJs have Thinking on the outside and INTPs Intuition.

If we say being analytical is associated with Thinking, than wouldnt the type that has Thinking in the first function tend to be more analytical than the type that has thinking in the second place?

Or how about, if we say that Intuition is the salient factor concerning creativity, wouldnt this suggest that the type that has Intuition in the first place would be more creative?


The case is that we are more comfortable showing the world our extroverted functions more than introverted. So with the INTP, you will not see how analytical they really are unless you're in a close association with them. You will not see the INTJ's imagination unless the environment is appropriate. In most cases you will see the rigid Te that is particular about the way that things are done.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
INTJs are Js.

INTPs are Ps.

The end.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
INTJs are Js.

INTPs are Ps.

The end.


INTPs are led by a judging function and INTJs by a perceiving. Socionics did a better job of labeling calling the TiNe INTj and NiTe INTp. Though Leanor Thompson did well to notice that Ni is still a left-brained function and is more easily compared to the Te.
 

Rhu

Morlock
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
108
MBTI Type
Pfft
You will not see the INTJ's imagination unless the environment is appropriate. In most cases you will see the rigid Te that is particular about the way that things are done.

So we'll see your imagination if we provide an environment that gets us past your very particular exterior?
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
INTPs are led by a judging function and INTJs by a perceiving. Socionics did a better job of labeling calling the TiNe INTj and NiTe INTp. Though Leanor Thompson did well to notice that Ni is still a left-brained function and is more easily compared to the Te.

Too bad function stacking is dubious and hardly a rigid system.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
So we'll see your imagination if we provide an environment that gets us past your very particular exterior?

What are you talking about? Nothing that I said is set in stone. Everything is negotiable. I am even going out of my way to encourage people to disagree with what I say as long as it shows that they have thought it out thoroughly. And I certainly dont think in concepts like the left-brained learners do. (Js)

Although what INTJs say, at the time, for them may be set in stone, because they cant improvise on the fly. But later, when they go on to reflect, they will appreciate someone having corrected them as their Ni loves new ideas. And Ni wont cling to the method, because Ni devised the method in the first place, it can easily devise another one. Te clings to the method because it cant create, it can only follow through. Too bad the INTJ is led by the Ni, not the Te, the function that creates and not just executes.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
46,746
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
... oh god, I love it when SW takes control like this... <swoon>
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Too bad function stacking is dubious and hardly a rigid system.

They manifest themselves in a myriad of fashions, yet it does not mean that those functions do not have a clear-cut meaning. If we perceive those types appropriately, we should have a good idea of what they are like. No need for relativism here.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
46,746
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think it would do you well to take a step back for a moment and recall that people existed first, and the theory was supposed to be derived from them.

As such, you could in a sense equate humanity (REAL HUMAN behavior) to the noumenal and the MBTI theory as a subset of the Real (thus equatable to the phenoumenal).

So you've taken a theory that is already less than the "Real" and are theorizing based on it, then trying to slap it back over top of the Real.

It's not going to match up. It can't. It's just a theory and can't contain all the nuances and distinctions of the Real. It will be reflective to some degree, but it's going to have inconsistencies and flaws. Such as the one we are uncovering here.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I think it would do you well to take a step back for a moment and recall that people existed first, and the theory was supposed to be derived from them.

As such, you could in a sense equate humanity (REAL HUMAN behavior) to the noumenal and the MBTI theory as a subset of the Real (thus equatable to the phenoumenal).

So you've taken a theory that is already less than the "Real" and are theorizing based on it, then trying to slap it back over top of the Real.

It's not going to match up. It can't. It's just a theory and can't contain all the nuances and distinctions of the Real. It will be reflective to some degree, but it's going to have inconsistencies and flaws. Such as the one we are uncovering here.

Here is the kind of a thing that this is. Galileo once said that mathematics is the language that God wrote the Universe with. Hence it is a symbolic representation of how natural law works. Type is just the faculties that our personality uses. The way it is used usually depends on the environment one is subjected to.

All in all saying how you cant systemize it is just a cop-out.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Here is the kind of a thing that this is. Galileo once said that mathematics is the language that God wrote the Universe with. Hence it is a symbolic representation of how natural law works. Type is just the faculties that our personality uses. The way it is used usually depends on the environment one is subjected to.

All in all saying how you cant systemize it is just a cop-out.

I think equating typology to a quantifiable system such as mathematics is folly. The human mind is analog and cannot be completely accurately measured with a binary system such as MBTI. It can be very helpful, but it does not reflect the truth of the mind in as much detail as mathematics reflects the truth of the universe.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I think equating typology to a quantifiable system such as mathematics is folly. The human mind is analog and cannot be completely accurately measured with a binary system such as MBTI. It can be very helpful, but it does not reflect the truth of the mind in as much detail as mathematics reflects the truth of the universe.

Type is supposed to deal with the unconscious mind. That is entirely outside of our experience. Personality changes, type does not. We really cant talk about type in a meaningful fashion because we cant access it. At best we could guess about what it may be like based on the way it shows itself through personality. Mathematics was just an allegory, I am not equating type with that.
 

ptgatsby

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,474
MBTI Type
ISTP
I think equating typology to a quantifiable system such as mathematics is folly. The human mind is analog and cannot be completely accurately measured with a binary system such as MBTI. It can be very helpful, but it does not reflect the truth of the mind in as much detail as mathematics reflects the truth of the universe.

Nonesense. Words are exactly like math... they are completely accurate in respresenting their meaning!

Why, just yesterday, I defined f = -9.8 in my physics books, and instead of falling off off the building, I flew! Believe in the power of math... It will set you free!
 

rivercrow

shoshaku jushaku
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,555
MBTI Type
type
We need Xander in here to assist with our definitions. :alttongue:
 
Top