INTP/INTJ observation

[2plus2equalsfive]

I've been lurking for a day, and am undergoing my own self-analysis. I might be INTP, but not so sure.. however my girlfriend is testing INTJ, or at the very least, she's happy with that description for now.

Dumb title for a mundane post (and my first, at that). Not sure what any of this really means..

I saw a documentary where a BYU professor was sharing his work analyzing data on a chip recovered from the rubble of a tower that was supposedly rigged for collapse. I thought to myself, this is quite an odd distinction, a Mormon professor testifying a conspiracy theory in a documentary?
I verbalized my thought, and my girlfriend corrected me straight away, "No, he's currently a professor at BYU, that's what it said".
It seemed she instantly wanted to disprove my comment by relying upon a detail we both missed on the screen: Former.

Unsurprisingly, a conjecture on both parts, one seeking to illuminate a possible connection of ideas, the other aiming to disprove with seemingly concrete evidence.

After a week of investigating typology, I'm still not very clear on how it works nor sure what type I am, now I'm stooping to relying upon externals for validation.

Not only that, but two very kind ladies knocked on my door yesterday, and I asked them "What is this concerning?", and upon receiving the answer (bible-fellowship), I swiftly stated "We're not interested in that". Rude and to the point, later with feelings of regret for my lack of tact and propriety. Not exactly the description of a reserved egghead or an empathic feeler.

 

[Words]

Ni vs. Ne?

I might be wrong here but I'll share my thoughts.

I see Ni as Deductive reasoning and Ne as Inductive reasoning.

"Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning." The "open" and "exploring" words can easily be related to INTP.

"Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses." Hmm..sounds like that vision to fulfill for the INTJ.

-----

Ni is answer first, then explain. Most people are probably using this answer and explain method more than the other--whether with Si or Ni--because most people are Judgers(from experience only); It is selecting an answer and then selecting evidence to fit the answer(the model). This is also related to the Judgers' want for instant closure.

Ne is explain then come up with a conclusion; It is looking at facts and then selecting an answer to fit the facts.

Both are effective in different ways; they're also not necessarily used without each other.

Though, this difference could be the main source of problem in communication between perceivers and judgers.

I remind you: these are simply my unconfirmed, half-baked thoughts.

 

[2plus2equalsfive]

I've revised the original post for more logical consistency (yet it's still lengthy and regrettably not to the point).

 

[Words]

I've revised the original post for more logical consistency (yet it's still lengthy and regrettably not to the point).

Yes, maybe I'm missing your point.

I saw your girlfriend solving the problem by answering first and then showing evidence--also known as deductive reasoning--and yourself trying to explore the "what if" of possible connections of ideas.

In another sentence structure:

"What reason, if true, would a Mormon professor have to testify a conspiracy theory in a documentary?"

Rude and to the point, later with feelings of regret for my lack of tact and propriety. Not exactly the description of a reserved egghead or an empathic feeler.

Could be Si(the memory) and the Ne(other possible replies/consequences). Those "regrets" tend to happen to me as well.
---

What is it you want clarified? Your type or differences between the two types?

 

[Adymus]

Words doesn't know what he is talking about.

Both Ni and Ne are processes that gather information, none of them reason or process it in anyway.

What words is looking at is his observed reasoning processes that INTJs and INTPs specifically go through, which is not exclusive to only their Ni and Ne, nor is it always inductive or deductive.


Anyway, the difference between INTP and INTJ is not as simple as Ni vs Ne, it is Ti-Ne:Si-Fe vs Ni-Te:Fi-Se.

I won't base anything on what you said only, so you could talk more about yourself if you would like my input. Giving more stories about how you interact with people is also helpful

 

[Words]

What words is looking at is his observed reasoning processes that INTJs and INTPs specifically go through, which is not exclusive to only their Ni and Ne, nor is it always inductive or deductive.

I didn't mentioned that it is exclusive; I am simply implying that there is a tendency for Dominant Ne to follow inductive and Ni to follow deductive.

Anyway, the difference between INTP and INTJ is not as simple as Ni vs Ne, it is Ti-Ne:Si-Fe vs Ni-Te:Fi-Se.

I agree that it's not as simple as that; however, I'm implying that we can observe differences from "smaller samples".

 

[Mello]

I think he's INTP.

 

[Adymus]

INTPs are not dominant Ne, so I don't really see how that would be relevant anyway. Ti uses both kinds of reasoning pretty consistently, I don't see why you think we use more inductive than deductive.

I have a good rule of thumb for you though:

Ne drives toward finding possibilities, and keeping things open-ended.

Ni drives toward synthesizing a single worldview, which is much less open-ended. It is not concerned with what could be, it is concerned with what will be.

 

[Words]

INTPs are not dominant Ne

I'm using the word not the type word.

Ti uses both kinds of reasoning pretty consistently, I don't see why you think we use more inductive than deductive.

Yes, but we still perceive mainly but not exclusively through Ne.

 

[Adymus]

Yes, but we still perceive through Ne.

Irrelevant.

We make Judgments through Ti, not Ne.

 

[Words]

Irrelevant.

We make Judgments through Ti, not Ne.

How does the Ne affect the Ti's Judgment?

 

[Adymus]

How does the Ne affect the Ti's Judgment?

By giving it more information and possibilities to work with.

 

[2plus2equalsfive]

Sorry, the observation was in the interest of delineating my base type.

I've been told I "have a lot of language" when I try to explain things.

I've never been interested in math or the sciences, nor hung out with the brainiacs or was impressed by them in school. I was a real loner, was beyond my years with music and shoes, incessantly flustered in not having my dress, speech, intent, purpose, perfectly honed... making friends for a time, but always remaining a loner, hopeless that I'd ever find my clique.

I'm tall and handsome (so I've always been told).

Any time I've fallen in "love", it's ended in catastrophe. One ex told me, when I pleaded with her to help instill a grip on reality, "Oh babe, you're just a thinker".

I didn't graduate from high school.

When I was a teenager, a friend slipped me a fascinating book on yoga, the theory of a Supreme Consciousness took me all the way to a yogic cult and India (and back).

These experiences confirmed theories of my own. My skeptic hat is reinforced with steel bolts, in spite of all efforts to challenge it.

Meandered around in college and couldn't decide a best fit for my interests. Decided women were a best fit for my interests and proceeded the downward spiral.

Uncomfortable with making decisions in general, always doubting if I've enough information to inform my decision best.

Believe I am often able to unravel a persons motive for what they are thinking, saying, and doing. Often assured I can see right through them, yet aware self-righteousness is a factor in this type of thinking. I'm a double-standard flashlight. I acknowledge that believing I know a person doesn't always factor in how that person may've changed, or I may've changed, and conversation often ends in people thinking I'm paranoid anyway.

I have tried, vainly at times, to be recognized within my own family. However, it's not unreasonable to say I am considered little more than an apathetic wanderer.

I recently played a healer role (not my strong suit and definitely with much internal debate), for an old friend who had a serious drug problem. Said person is now off drugs, completely, and will be back to work soon.

In a conversation explaining the situation, someone said "Gee, you're a life-saver", in an obviously facetious way. The remark cut me pretty deep. I told her I had to go, then I called her back after an internal mental debate, simply to call her out on the slight. Prior to doing so, I had to determine why I felt miffed, and if it was selfishness on my part.
Her response initially was to deflect, as most will when one gets straight to the heart of the matter. As I'd supposed, she made me out to be confrontational, as though I revel in the state of being distraught. I seem to always be in defense of my dignity.

I remembered how difficult it was to help this person, and that my very motive was being questioned anyway, as though I couldn't have possibly suffered for anyone else. I believe the situation itself demanded its own intrinsic respect, and that any viewpoint of me or anything else was irrelevant.

I felt slightly appeased, when I realized I wasn't nuts for feeling the injustice, as well as the effectiveness employed to wrangle a pebble of honesty out of my own mom. However, I still realized her acknowledgement of acting crass was only meant to appease me. I seem to want to stop superficiality dead in its tracks.

I see life as a (not-so)merry-go-round, but I want to be happier. I know anti-depressants aren't the answer, I've been down that road.

People being honest and accountable seems very important to me.

These days, I seem to be viewed as a kind of aimless hooligan by my ExTJ/ISFP family.

I've never been able to wrestle free of guilt/I am a suicide survivor.

With INTP, I am contented with the description, and yet.. It's what I'd want to be too, therefore, I am very concerned it may not be. That tricky bias component.

When I was young, my natural father (whom I'd just met) would call me "Einstein" on the phone. I hung up repeatedly until I realized who I was hanging up on.

I've already edited this post many times. Accuracy of speech and the written word in conveying an idea matters to me. Perfectionist.

After a week of this, discouraged that I still haven't found my base type, applied it to an academic path/training, and taken the first step. Feeling dejected that any of it would ever prove so enlightening.

 

[Reluctantly]

I share similar sentiments on not knowing who I am. I'm pretty sure I'm an INTJ that tests as an INTP, but then again I don't know and I guess it doesn't matter too much anyway.

This is hard to explain what I understand without having this get (Ti+Ne)ed to hell into a referential argument, but I'll try.

So INTPs tend to like to make structured judgements about things and support them with Ne (possibilities), whereas an INTJ will tend to look past that and want to go with some reasoning that is more practical and make a future judgement on that reasoning (although that isn't to say that the INTP reference of ideas are uninteresting or useless, but just that they tend to serve more the purpose of knowledge for its own sake and not knowledge for the sake of reshaping our environment or predicting the future). This is why INTP is generally called the architect and INTJ is generally called the mastermind.

So in essence, INTJ generally wants to blend in and be successful with their use of Ni+Te by predicting what's going to happen and using that to their advantage by acting on it and affecting their environment more with proven results. So INTP generally wants to analyze and look at possibilities without concern of usefulness; they derive fun from the pursuit and not the results. INTJ derives fun from the results and considers the pursuit work, for the most part. Although what I'm really trying to get at here is that INTJ is more concerned for some result that can be obtained whereas INTP is more concerned for putting things into theoretical models that hold up to scrutiny and allow them to make as much sense of the world as possible. And because of these two concerns you can probably imagine that they often appear to be a part of both types, but at the core foundation of psychological motivation, I think this is the true basic differentiating aspect of the two.

...I think. This is the frame of observation I have pretty much concluded upon anyway regarding typology. I would steer clear of any simple assumptions regarding who is narrow-minded and what not since that doesn't ever really hold true and just makes finding the proper type difficult. I'm sure INTJs think INTPs are narrow-minded and that INTPs think INTJs are narrow-minded. They have different inherent goals, so to speak, that often conflict with each other.

So you said you went to India? Would you mind sharing some details of that? That sounds pretty interesting. Here's an elephant because that's what India makes me think of

 

[TheHmmmm]

I share similar sentiments on not knowing who I am. I'm pretty sure I'm an INTJ that tests as an INTP, but then again I don't know and I guess it doesn't matter too much anyway.

This is hard to explain what I understand without having this get (Ti+Ne)ed to hell into a referential argument, but I'll try.

So INTPs tend to like to make structured judgements about things and support them with Ne (possibilities), whereas an INTJ will tend to look past that and want to go with some reasoning that is more practical and make a future judgement on that reasoning (although that isn't to say that the INTP reference of ideas are uninteresting or useless, but just that they tend to serve more the purpose of knowledge for its own sake and not knowledge for the sake of reshaping our environment or predicting the future). This is why INTP is generally called the architect and INTJ is generally called the mastermind.

So in essence, INTJ generally wants to blend in and be successful with their use of Ni+Te by predicting what's going to happen and using that to their advantage by acting on it and affecting their environment more with proven results. So INTP generally wants to analyze and look at possibilities without concern of usefulness; they derive fun from the pursuit and not the results. INTJ derives fun from the results and considers the pursuit work, for the most part. Although what I'm really trying to get at here is that INTJ is more concerned for some result that can be obtained whereas INTP is more concerned for putting things into theoretical models that hold up to scrutiny and allow them to make as much sense of the world as possible. And because of these two concerns you can probably imagine that they often appear to be a part of both types, but at the core foundation of psychological motivation, I think this is the true basic differentiating aspect of the two.

...I think. This is the frame of observation I have pretty much concluded upon anyway regarding typology. I would steer clear of any simple assumptions regarding who is narrow-minded and what not since that doesn't ever really hold true and just makes finding the proper type difficult. I'm sure INTJs think INTPs are narrow-minded and that INTPs think INTJs are narrow-minded. They have different inherent goals, so to speak, that often conflict with each other.

So you said you went to India? Would you mind sharing some details of that? That sounds pretty interesting. Here's an elephant because that's what India makes me think of

Whoa there. You make some generalizations that, I'm sorry to say, just simply aren't true.

First off, INTJ's are far more likely to make judgments than INTP's, although I will give you that they are more practical in their conclusions and INTP's are much more "knowledge-seekers" without regard to functionality.

Second, your statement that INTJ's want to "blend in" couldn't be more inaccurate. INTJs' "Fe" function is so far down the list that it only surfaces in rare, particular moments. Most of the time they share an "I don't give a (insert expletive here) about what they think" attitude. Both types are extremely individualistic.

I can agree to your statements that determining which type is more narrow-minded is ridiculous. Both types are very open to different possibilities, but one is more likely to make judgments about them more quickly. Both also are willing to change their ideologies when they can confidently realize that theirs are illogical.

Lengthy consideration doesn't make you any more "open" to possibilities than someone who picks apart the flaws in something rather quickly.

 

[universe34]

I have no point of view on this subject, not being very knowledgeable on it, but I wanted to say that the screen name "2plus2equalsfive" is an excellent reference to the book 1984.

 

[Reluctantly]

Whoa there. You make some generalizations that, I'm sorry to say, just simply aren't true.

First off, INTJ's are far more likely to make judgments than INTP's, although I will give you that they are more practical in their conclusions and INTP's are much more "knowledge-seekers" without regard to functionality.

Second, your statement that INTJ's want to "blend in" couldn't be more inaccurate. INTJs' "Fe" function is so far down the list that it only surfaces in rare, particular moments. Most of the time they share an "I don't give a (insert expletive here) about what they think" attitude. Both types are extremely individualistic.

I can agree to your statements that determining which type is more narrow-minded is ridiculous. Both types are very open to different possibilities, but one is more likely to make judgments about them more quickly. Both also are willing to change their ideologies when they can confidently realize that theirs are illogical.

Lengthy consideration doesn't make you any more "open" to possibilities than someone who picks apart the flaws in something rather quickly.

This is why I was reluctant to make that post. Not only have you asserted that INTJs make more judgments, which is all based on what you want to base judgments on, but you attempted to stereotype INTJs into the "I don't give a (insert expletive here) about what they think" attitude, which is all dependent on the maturity of the person and has little if any relevance in typing someone.

And then you make the assumption I think lengthy consideration makes someone more open to possibilities. I have no idea why you would twist my words to reach such a conclusion about what I said, as I'm only concerned about being as neutral and objective as possible about this, and I'm just not interested in arguing semantics. So if you have something to say regarding the semantics of the argument I am not ignoring you out of disrespect, but out of disinterest.

Also, just for the sake of providing a counter-argument to your insistence that INTJs are more judgmental, Ni leads INTJs which is a perceiving data-gathering function. Ti leads INTPs which is a judging function. If this sounds familiar, you are correct, it is how socionics views the judging/perceiving dilemma. Now I'm not telling you this because I believe it to be true in the context of which type might be more judgmental, I'm telling you because I am hopeful that you will come to appreciate how this is a very complex question to approach that not even the differing typologies agree on.

[edit]A mature INTJ will appreciate the use of Fe for the affect it gives others and its ability to blend in. An immature INTJ will resist Fe with full force. I will submit that Fe takes time, an open mind, and appreciation for an INTJ to develop however. In this sense I think I can see why you have said what you have about INTJs.[/edit]

 

[Words]

Reluctantly, I think he was referring to my post when he said "Lengthy consideration doesn't make you any more "open" to possibilities than someone who picks apart the flaws in something rather quickly."

Though I'd argue that, on average, it will make a difference in openness. one who doesn't decide = several choices. one who decides = only one. Consideration of further information when judging people is the neutral stance. The argument of later argument, the neutral standpoint, breeds the less conviction in "being correct".

It's not "cool" to be incorrect. That is why the "prediction" is more entertained than the facts. Though I"m guessing Ti acts the same way in proving it's own subjective model with conviction.

 

[TheHmmmm]

This is why I was reluctant to make that post. Not only have you asserted that INTJs make more judgments, which is all based on what you want to base judgments on, but you attempted to stereotype INTJs into the "I don't give a (insert expletive here) about what they think" attitude, which is all dependent on the maturity of the person and has little if any relevance in typing someone.

And then you make the assumption I think lengthy consideration makes someone more open to possibilities. I have no idea why you would twist my words to reach such a conclusion about what I said, as I'm only concerned about being as neutral and objective as possible about this, and I'm just not interested in arguing semantics. So if you have something to say regarding the semantics of the argument I am not ignoring you out of disrespect, but out of disinterest.

Also, just for the sake of providing a counter-argument to your insistence that INTJs are more judgmental, Ni leads INTJs which is a perceiving data-gathering function. Ti leads INTPs which is a judging function. If this sounds familiar, you are correct, it is how socionics views the judging/perceiving dilemma. Now I'm not telling you this because I believe it to be true in the context of which type might be more judgmental, I'm telling you because I am hopeful that you will come to appreciate how this is a very complex question to approach that not even the differing typologies agree on.

[edit]A mature INTJ will appreciate the use of Fe for the affect it gives others and its ability to blend in. An immature INTJ will resist Fe with full force. I will submit that Fe takes time, an open mind, and appreciation for an INTJ to develop however. In this sense I think I can see why you have said what you have about INTJs.[/edit]

The idea that a mature type will use their inferior functions has always been ridiculous to me. The usage of a function seems like an entirely personal choice based on whether or not the person enjoys it. To say that someone who doesn't use their lesser functions is "immature" is a horrible way to gauge personal development in my opinion. However. I don't say that all INTJ's behave exactly the same. I will maintain that the majority of them make judgments more quickly than INTP's and don't care about what other people's opinion of them.

As far as your description of judgmental functions, the labeling of functions judgmental (T or F) or perceiving (N or S) doesn't determine whether or not the overall type will be more or less willing to make judgments or act. It's just a name for the functions that take in information and then decide what to do with it. Ti is considered a judging function, yet is entirely passive in its processing. Also, I am aware that socionics and MBTI often take opposite sides, but it seems to entirely be based in terminology, stemming from the judging/perceiving dilemma. Most people here go by MBTI however, so that's the context here.

 

[Reluctantly]

Reluctantly, I think he was referring to my post when he said "Lengthy consideration doesn't make you any more "open" to possibilities than someone who picks apart the flaws in something rather quickly."
...

Oh, I see. That makes sense then.

And I should have elaborated on what I meant by blending in. For INTPs blending in means integrating successful into a crowd of people. For an INTJ blending in means observing from a distance without being noticed. It's kind of like INTP likes to blend in with the people and INTJ likes to blend in with the environment.

Well whether or not you think it's ridiculous is up to you to decide. I'm not going to tell you not to think that way, but I will say there are plenty of people who completely disagree with you.

First off, INTJ's are far more likely to make judgments than INTP's, ...

Second, your statement that INTJ's want to "blend in" couldn't be more inaccurate. INTJs' "Fe" function is so far down the list that it only surfaces in rare, particular moments. Most of the time they share an "I don't give a (insert expletive here) about what they think" attitude. Both types are extremely individualistic.

The idea that a mature type will use their inferior functions has always been ridiculous to me.

I don't say that all INTJ's behave exactly the same. I will maintain that the majority of them make judgments more quickly than INTP's and don't care about what other people's opinion of them.

Ti is considered a judging function, yet is entirely passive in its processing.

Okay, forget the whole the judging/perceiving thing that I don't really care about and just used to make a point and notice how very Ti the above comments are. You're establishing what you consider to be true as a starting point. That's Ti's job. And it's attempting to bait me into having an argument based on those principles. I refuse to limit myself to only those possibilities. But I think this is working well in illustrating the difference to the OP, which is the purpose of the thread . So we're being productive ;P

Ti is considered a judging function, yet is entirely passive in its processing.

It's not being very passive here in this introverted domain. I find Ti to be very judgmental of my thoughts, which is why I figured out I'm probably an INTJ and not an INTP. But I think what you mean to say to the above quote is that Ti judgments are internal and often not expressed to another (at least not directly and in person that is) like Te is by its environmental organizing nature. That's fine if you want to say that makes Te more judgmental, although I disagree based on perspective. But this is the point I was trying to make to the OP.

As far as your description of judgmental functions, the labeling of functions judgmental (T or F) or perceiving (N or S) doesn't determine whether or not the overall type will be more or less willing to make judgments or act. It's just a name for the functions that take in information and then decide what to do with it.

Well, that's not quite fair. You made all these claims of INTJs being more judgmental and rejecting about what other people think and then you go and say the functions don't say anything like that and are just used to represent taking in information and deciding what to do with that information. Clearly if you think INTJs are more judgmental and rejecting then you think Ni+Te is more judgmental than Ti+Ne. If you thought the functions didn't represent that you would say both types can be judgmental. I don't understand at all what you are saying. But I guess it doesn't matter. The OP should have some good information now from our discussion.

 

[Razare]

Uncomfortable with making decisions in general, always doubting if I've enough information to inform my decision best.

Your last letter is P... so IN?P. You're probably an INTP.

Believe I am often able to unravel a persons motive for what they are thinking, saying, and doing. Often assured I can see right through them, yet aware self-righteousness is a factor in this type of thinking. I'm a double-standard flashlight. I acknowledge that believing I know a person doesn't always factor in how that person may've changed, or I may've changed, and conversation often ends in people thinking I'm paranoid anyway.

I have tried, vainly at times, to be recognized within my own family. However, it's not unreasonable to say I am considered little more than an apathetic wanderer.

You sound a lot like me, these two paragraphs describe me exactly.

There's different sorts of INTP's, not all of us are hung-up on geeky interests all our lives. If you have occasional intense fascination with learning the details of something (whatever that is) then I think INTP sounds like a good match. This fascination could be girls, yoga, or whatever. We just focus that interest on T stuff a lot because T is what we use, though, it doesn't have to be T related.

 

[snafupants]

Words doesn't know what he is talking about.

Both Ni and Ne are processes that gather information, none of them reason or process it in anyway.

What words is looking at is his observed reasoning processes that INTJs and INTPs specifically go through, which is not exclusive to only their Ni and Ne, nor is it always inductive or deductive.


Anyway, the difference between INTP and INTJ is not as simple as Ni vs Ne, it is Ti-Ne:Si-Fe vs Ni-Te:Fi-Se.

I won't base anything on what you said only, so you could talk more about yourself if you would like my input. Giving more stories about how you interact with people is also helpful

You come off as a bit prig by starting off saying someone doesnt know what they are talking about; barring the discussion, that would rankle me by itself. Thats just for your edification. Also, I thought he had some decent - yet half-fledged - points. The problem is that INTPs, by being open/induction or whatever word we use, run the risk of wasting time and going over previously confirmed data. INTJs, contrastingly, seem to want to solve the problem with less regard for how said problem is alleviated.

 

[Ermine]

Not incredibly relevant, but I don't really get where irony is concerning the former BYU professor. Dr. Steven E. Jones has just as much freedom to participate in a conspiracy theory as anyone else, and it seems he only retired just because his theory was creating too much hype.

 

[Maverick]

2plus2equalsfive, you're INTJ I think.

Try this
Whenever Ni dom tries to decipher his Ni before getting himself typed (or just he shares the lack of deep understanding of Ni with other types) the result is similar to what you're experiencing.

Ni doms have a better insight resulting from swiftly shifting perspectives. These incessantly searching "eyes" rest on what always has lurked in the background, so to speak.
This give them that seemingly paradoxical streaks (very skeptic, and with auxiliary Je self-righteous, self-assured etc).

They fall prey to their own actions when trying to discern their the unfettered and undivided Ni. They enter a loop. INTJs have no discerning capabilities, just simply know it or think so (it's no biggie, because their logic is experimenting). INFJs think they can (their tertiary Ti does much smokescreen, "the least salvageable"). This will lead 'em to fly away from their judging auxiliary functions leaving them to more skepticism.


The contributing factors to the pitfall:
-poor understanding of Ni (disreputable despite being a powerful function) just use it and see.
-Ni's cogitation (makes someone more inclined to think of P)
-it's 'fascinating' to be typed as INTP (just among underachievers "the glamor of looking different", Einstein-type"debatable" .. etc ).
-being typed as INTP when you're not, you will suffer the misery to trying to reach your deeply suited unreachable functions (somewhat easier to INFJ you can guess why).
-the fake Ti that appears whenever you use claimed function typing test (sometimes as a dominant, leading sometimes to have yourself fooled typed as INTX, there's no such type)

 

[Fukyo]

INTJs have no discerning capabilities

Wait, there a minute...what?

Of course they do. Just because they're Ni dominants doesn't mean they lack Judging functions. Te is quite capable of logical discernment.

 

[Maverick]

Wait, there a minute...what?

Of course they do. Just because they're Ni dominants doesn't mean they lack Judging functions. Te is quite capable of logical discernment.

May be semantically wrong, but contextually I'm sure you got the point so why are you even bothered?!. I meant Ti's type of discernment.

Perfect precise statement is a myth. There's always a shadow meaning (that's what's Ni about). Though I tried to make it as precise as possible (a lot of editing).



PS: Te applies 'objective' logic.

 

[TriflinThomas]

Bump

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Bump

Hahahahaha you bastard! You bumped me now I have all this re-scrolling to do.

 

[scorpiomover]

Not only that, but two very kind ladies knocked on my door yesterday, and I asked them "What is this concerning?", and upon receiving the answer (bible-fellowship), I swiftly stated "We're not interested in that". Rude and to the point, later with feelings of regret for my lack of tact and propriety. Not exactly the description of a reserved egghead or an empathic feeler.

It's a typical answer of an INTP who is starting to develop his Fe, enough to be aware that he was too curt, but not quite enough to actually change his behaviour yet.

However, had you been an unsympathetic INTJ, you probably would have argued with them that they were wrong.

I saw a documentary where a BYU professor was sharing his work analyzing data on a chip recovered from the rubble of a tower that was supposedly rigged for collapse. I thought to myself, this is quite an odd distinction, a Mormon professor testifying a conspiracy theory in a documentary?
I verbalized my thought, and my girlfriend corrected me straight away, "No, he's currently a professor at BYU, that's what it said".
It seemed she instantly wanted to disprove my comment by relying upon a detail we both missed on the screen: Former.

Sounds like your g/f is a J. That you missed such an obvious factual detail, would suggest that you are an N.

2 INTJs who argue, is not a pretty sight. Neither wants to give in. That you didn't turn her comment into a long drawn-out argument, suggests that you are a P.

Ni vs. Ne?

I might be wrong here but I'll share my thoughts.

I see Ni as Deductive reasoning and Ne as Inductive reasoning.

"Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning." The "open" and "exploring" words can easily be related to INTP.

"Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses." Hmm..sounds like that vision to fulfill for the INTJ.

I found the quotes you used, expressed in this article, called Deduction & Induction, referring to 2 different methods

From the definitions they used of deductive and inductive reasoning, I'd say that deductive reasoning is Ni-Te (theorise, test), and inductive reasoning is Ne-Ti (observe pattern, develop theory to explain the pattern).

Also, FYI, neither method is like mathematical deduction, which is highly certain.

 

[Words]

I found the quotes you used, expressed in this article, called Deduction & Induction, referring to 2 different methods

i think I used someone's definition there because I wasn't very familiar with those two concepts yet. Maybe we can just use an intuitive understanding of those terms.

From the definitions they used of deductive and inductive reasoning, I'd say that deductive reasoning is Ni-Te (theorise, test), and inductive reasoning is Ne-Ti (observe pattern, develop theory to explain the pattern).

I like that, especially the simplification of Te and Ne.

Also, FYI, neither method is like mathematical deduction, which is highly certain.

Hmm..true, math is too certain to be compared to the other two. I would argue thatt the difference between it and the deduction defined by socialresearchmethods is simply a matter of sophistication though.


For context, I wrote that more than 2 years ago. Now, it seems rather incomplete.

How about this?

Ni-deductive
Ne-inductive
Ti-deductive
Te-inductive
Si-deductive
Se-Inductive

Obviously, e = inductive and i = deductive.

TiNe and NeTi are deducers in rationalization but are inducers(?) in information. NiTe and TeNi are deducers in information but are inducers in rationalization.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Obviously, e = inductive and i = deductive.

You could also say Px = inductive and Jx = deductive.

 

[Words]

You could also say Px = inductive and Jx = deductive.

Good counter-perspective. I don't think Je functions are deductive though. Te "tests" things by referencing the external. It either looks for an approving external rationale or looks for data. Maybe Te is deductive in the sense that it cites or learns existing laws about formal logic or formal math and applies that, but referencing a formal standard seems to be similar to what I've been trying to define as "inductive." The formal standard Te assimilates is outside of the self. It is an external rationale. Hm... How about this? Superficially it is theoretical and deductive, but in reality or for the most part it is inductive. The problem with the definition of inductive reasoning is that it only considers plain information; it ignores information in the form of a standard. Te is bottom-up in the sense that all is sourced from the external.

The same can be said for Fe. Fe garners socio-emotional standards from an intuited abstract set of external informal standards. Superficially, Fe is deductive, but in reality it relies on the external.

What about Ni, which is a Px function? Isn't it a very top-down function? In contrast to Se?

 

[fissionesque]

I saw a documentary where a BYU professor was sharing his work analyzing data on a chip recovered from the rubble of a tower that was supposedly rigged for collapse. I thought to myself, this is quite an odd distinction, a Mormon professor testifying a conspiracy theory in a documentary?
I verbalized my thought, and my girlfriend corrected me straight away, "No, he's currently a professor at BYU, that's what it said".
It seemed she instantly wanted to disprove my comment by relying upon a detail we both missed on the screen: Former.

Unsurprisingly, a conjecture on both parts, one seeking to illuminate a possible connection of ideas, the other aiming to disprove with seemingly concrete evidence.

After a week of investigating typology, I'm still not very clear on how it works nor sure what type I am, now I'm stooping to relying upon externals for validation.

It sounds a lot like a Te thing. We like to organize the world and correct it. It's very difficult (almost painful) for an INTJ to keep quiet when there is a feeling of incorrectness in the air.

 

[scorpiomover]

@Words

i think I used someone's definition there because I wasn't very familiar with those two concepts yet. Maybe we can just use an intuitive understanding of those terms.

Oh. Right. Well, when I was a kid, Deduction was used as if it meant stereotypical mathematical reasoning, A => B. Induction was used to mean something that you inferred was true, from looking at a huge set of data, and then you tested all of your data, and found that the data was consistent with your hypothesis. Based on that, deduction would be Ti, and Induction would be Ni-Te.

Random Matrix Theory shows that in any data set, there are a lot more hypotheses, that can be proved by induction, than by deduction. But something can be inductively true, and still easily be wrong. Deduction is much more solid. Accordingly, induction is much faster than deduction, but a lot less accurate, exactly what INTJs on INTJf have pointed out to me several times, is a major difference between INTJs and INTPs, INTJs being much quicker at coming to conclusions, but INTP's conclusions being much more accurate.

For context, I wrote that more than 2 years ago. Now, it seems rather incomplete.

How about this?

Ni-deductive
Ne-inductive
Ti-deductive
Te-inductive
Si-deductive
Se-Inductive

Obviously, e = inductive and i = deductive.

TiNe and NeTi are deducers in rationalization but are inducers(?) in information. NiTe and TeNi are deducers in information but are inducers in rationalization.

INTJs often post their ideas online, knowing full well, that they'll get shot down, to get others to tell them all their arguments against their ideas, so that they can then formulate answers for each one. Te isn't so much about thinking, as it is about how to manipulate the external world, including other people, to get them to test your theories for you. It's basically a broad-based filter, where the goal is what is important, and one considers whatever will get one to one's goal.

 

[17pounder]

If you are asking this kind of question, you arent an INTJ. What sets us apart is knowing what we know, and knowing what we do not know. Thats part of the J. Being Judging is not about being an A-hole, its about coming to conclusions naturally. If you see something, but dont or cannot come to a conclusion, you dont have J.

And most INTJs arent willingly rude. Remember that rude is subjective. If someone is doing something wrong, its rude to be screwing everything up. But most people only care about their emotions, and dont see anything wrong with being a screwup. When we are rude, it usually goes like this "Why did you do something that cost me two hours of work and hundred of dollars?", and the other person is like "why dont you care about my feelings", as if its fine for them to cause pain to us. Oh, and the best one is when they ask "why do you care" when you do care, like its wrong to care.

People will find ways to be insulted, the nature of an INTJ means solving problems, which tend to be human related in the first place. Therefore almost always insulting.

 

[JennaSayQuoi]

Ni vs. Ne?

I might be wrong here but I'll share my thoughts.

I see Ni as Deductive reasoning and Ne as Inductive reasoning.

"Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning." The "open" and "exploring" words can easily be related to INTP.

"Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses." Hmm..sounds like that vision to fulfill for the INTJ.

-----

Ni is answer first, then explain. Most people are probably using this answer and explain method more than the other--whether with Si or Ni--because most people are Judgers(from experience only); It is selecting an answer and then selecting evidence to fit the answer(the model). This is also related to the Judgers' want for instant closure.

Ne is explain then come up with a conclusion; It is looking at facts and then selecting an answer to fit the facts.

Both are effective in different ways; they're also not necessarily used without each other.

Though, this difference could be the main source of problem in communication between perceivers and judgers.

I remind you: these are simply my unconfirmed, half-baked thoughts.

I'm not sure of the functional stack basis, but I am an INTP married to an INTJ and what you are saying is very true. Eg: when we talk about a movie we have watched he describes the negatives and I describe the positives, but it ends up that we will almost always give it the same rating, in the end, even though I used to think he hated it. He starts with the whole and takes away, or something, and I build up from the ground piece by piece? I don't know how to describe it, but I very much yes with what you are saying. :P