INTP's suck at typing others

[Cherry Cola]

OK, definitional. But I still have trouble associating that kind of global thinking with INFJ's. I'm the one taking that approach, she's the one taking specific examples. Possibly it's just us, but it's the difference between an introverted and extraverted function after all.

Okay I don't know your wife, but typically speaking, when I bring out an argument like that it's not because I'm basing my take on Jung on that argument, it's because I need to find something specific that proves what I already feel I know intuitively about him as a person. I think the specific argument hides the holistic view that prompts it.

I also think that's a pretty typical mental process for Ni doms, having a mental inner picture and just needing some way to make it visible for others. Typically by finding something of a more specific nature that supports it. Sorry if this is vaguely written.

What I'm trying to say is that even if Ni doms may appear like they get all specific owing to the nature of their arguments that specificity is only possible following an holistic grasp of what's going on.

 

[Reluctantly]

^ Wow, yeah.

 

[OmoInisa]

+2

This is a wonderful description of Ni-Je at work in argumentation.
And I see it manifest particularly strongly in INTJs. Maybe because Te is more incisive and deconstructive than Fe.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I don't think it's right to say that INJs aren't holistic, because they start out holistically with an intuitive sense of the nature of whatever it is they are investigating and then try to work backwards, or extrapolate something from that. Whereas with INPs I get the sense that they start out smaller and then work their way to a broad understanding.

 

[Architect]

Okay I don't know your wife, but typically speaking, when I bring out an argument like that it's not because I'm basing my take on Jung on that argument, it's because I need to find something specific that proves what I already feel I know intuitively about him as a person. I think the specific argument hides the holistic view that prompts it.

I also think that's a pretty typical mental process for Ni doms, having a mental inner picture and just needing some way to make it visible for others. Typically by finding something of a more specific nature that supports it. Sorry if this is vaguely written.

What I'm trying to say is that even if Ni doms may appear like they get all specific owing to the nature of their arguments that specificity is only possible following an holistic grasp of what's going on.

Ni is hard to figure out and discuss so this is interesting.

I don't quite follow what you're saying (I hate to say but it's typically hard for me to divine what exactly INFJ's are saying much of the time), but this is what I see between the two of us, see if it makes sense.

Last night we were discussing ESJ's and why they try to control people (we have a relative doing this). I have been building up a theory - it's due to them not having an interior life. It's all exterior, and you're in the exterior, so therefore they need to control and push you around (just like how INTP's order their inner life).

Me - Ne

I build up an explanation from

• The theory (Se)
• Lenore Thompsons book (corroborating points)
• Examples of SJ's in our family (supporting evidence)
• Examples from old friends (...)
• SJ's in political organizations, religious and corporate (...)
• Historical (likely) SJ's (Moses ...)

I'm not too specific with these ideas, but they're like "lego parts" I'm using to build up the scaffolding of the idea. So I think here you see Ne gathering information (cherry picking in tandem with Ti) from a broad (global) set of sources. That's what Ne does, it looks out into the world and sucks in information broadly, but usually not too specifically (as I say I think Ti then cherry picks what it wants)

Her - Ni

Halfway through me explaining this she zeros in "It's Bob Dylan, he must be an intuitive!". I'm like "whaaaaaa? and feel like I was hit by a sniper while driving. It really throws me off my game when she does this (happens all the time) but as she explains (Dylan change to electric guitar and everybody hated him for it) I realize it's a good point. Now I also feel that it dilutes the essential argument as it's just bringing in another specific example. But to her (who I'm not sure really got the point) it gives it some reality.

So here I see Ni being specific, it likes to zero in on specific examples. Combined with Fe (judging function) I think it becomes holistic and decisive, in that it sees the entire person (Bob Dylan) also suffering from this problem, but it's still specific (judging) in that it zeros in on an individual, Ni-Fe. Does that make sense?

I never see Ni being as far ranging as I go (with Ne). The most is when she's under stress and literally becomes a whirling dervish. She'll almost start speaking in tongues, she'll rapid fire off all the things that are bothering her. I used to get flummoxed as I'd get a shit storm of random, unconnected problems. I've learned that it's important to let her wind down then find out what really is wrong.

Now she claims that those things are connected together, but I contend it can only seem that way to Ni, it's not something others can have visibility into.

I hope that makes sense ...

 

[Jungle]

In the above example, Architect is using Ni and his wife is using Ne. His understanding of these two concepts is completely inverted.

Perhaps it is ironic to mention it in this thread, but I am 99% certain that Architect is an INTJ who has mistyped himself as an INTP. I have read a selection of his previous posts on this forum and, when you dig beneath the surface, almost all of them are dominated by a strong Ni-Te attitude (intuitively organising the world). I could not find an example of him displaying Ti-Ne (analysing a wide range of possibilities on a problem-solving quest).

Once your eyes adjust to it, it is quite obvious. Say what you will about confirmation bias!

An INTJ MBTI-enthusiast could go down in history as the person who brought the system inside the fortress of academia. In my opinion most academics are INTJs, and most have rejected MBTI for whatever reasons. It would be great if there was an INTJ (either Architect or someone else) who believed in the system and who also had the patience to methodically test it using a scientific approach. I suspect it would take decades of ‘diving deep’ to gain credibility in that world.

 

[Reluctantly]

and the plot thickens

 

[del]

In the above example, Architect is using Ni and his wife is using Ne. His understanding of these two concepts is completely inverted.

Perhaps it is ironic to mention it in this thread, but I am 99% certain that Architect is an INTJ who has mistyped himself as an INTP. I have read a selection of his previous posts on this forum and, when you dig beneath the surface, almost all of them are dominated by a strong Ni-Te attitude (intuitively organising the world). I could not find an example of him displaying Ti-Ne (analysing a wide range of possibilities on a problem-solving quest).

Once your eyes adjust to it, it is quite obvious. Say what you will about confirmation bias!

An INTJ MBTI-enthusiast could go down in history as the person who brought the system inside the fortress of academia. In my opinion most academics are INTJs, and most have rejected MBTI for whatever reasons. It would be great if there was an INTJ (either Architect or someone else) who believed in the system and who also had the patience to methodically test it using a scientific approach. I suspect it would take decades of ‘diving deep’ to gain credibility in that world.

I'm not sure if I can handle the irony.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Can't someone else try to explain this point I'm trying to make about Ni? I'm too lazy

Furthermore, Architect is clearly an INTP.

 

[redbaron]

Architect is INTJ and his wife is INFP. It's been obvious for like 2 years now.

 

[OmoInisa]

Can't someone else try to explain this point I'm trying to make about Ni? I'm too lazy

Furthermore, Architect is clearly an INTP.

You explained it rather well.

Architect INTP? No more ISTJ?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Nope.

Architect doesn't use Ni the thought of him being an Ni-dom is baffling, ISTJ is more likely, but ISTJ isn't likely.

Could it be that you have some sort of need to believe that Architect isn't an INTP because you don't like him? Just speculating

 

[redbaron]

Nah he's actually had Ni/Ne inverted for the last 2 years. Just read the numerous examples of conversations with his wife. She's the Ne in the relationship.

Plus Architect is essentially a carbon-copy of a lot of the regular INTJ posters on Intjforum. So much so that it's actually hilarious.

 

[Black Rose]

Can't someone else try to explain this point I'm trying to make about Ni? I'm too lazy

Furthermore, Architect is clearly an INTP.

INTP being Ne users can scour the field of possibility much more quickly than Ni so it seems they can come up with an answer by process of elimination with Ti. Ni on the other hand will take what is intuited not by generating possibility but by constricting it to a finite set of elements that are already linked so they do not need to search for more than what they already have. Both Ni and Ne need to be exposed to the subject to grasp it but once this has happened Ni consolidates the evidence(exposure) to what something is because it matches into their other frameworks as subsets well Ne in its tangents may give ample evidence for what something is capable of without knowing its initial state. The framework of Ne is not specific but include all possibilities. INTP can theorize about a type can do well Ni users can see type unfolding from a persons actions.

 

[Architect]

Architect is INTJ and his wife is INFP. It's been obvious for like 2 years now.

Well I'm pretty sure at least that I'm not an annoying twit.

Perhaps it is ironic to mention it in this thread, but I am 99% certain that Architect is an INTJ who has mistyped himself as an INTP.

Ironic, indeed. You guys are hopeless.

 

[redbaron]

Well I'm pretty sure at least that I'm not an annoying twit.

Just how sure are you?

 

[Architect]

This is turning into a clusterfuck, it's getting old. Seems to happen whenever there's a predominance of a type congregated together. My workplace is almost entirely S, same thing. I got to enjoy one of those yesterday in fact (the reason why it's getting old).

I'm going to take a holiday from the forum, a long one I think. Time for a new perspective.

 

[Black Rose]

Architect, what about what i said?

 

[Cherry Cola]

thanks fuckface

 

[redbaron]

I guess it was too much to expect that a highly reputable programmer would be smart enough to use the ignore function on the forum?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Can't someone else try to explain this point I'm trying to make about Ni? I'm too lazy

Archetypes are preexisting forms which underlie any manifestation of something. Deduction is the process of taking general facts and applying them to specific cases.

Both of those seem like what you're referring to. In my own words, Ni is absorbing and accumulating all kinds of information then extracts trends and archetypes.

We can't exactly communicate internal knowledge however, so you have to find some common denominator to get your point across, but in doing so you distance yourself from the true mental image.

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Introverted/recluse people typing should be at a disadvantage, compared to how much social interaction and information is gathered by the rest of the community. It would make sense for people with lots of contacts to have a better general idea of categories of personalities and behaviours and from it of the possible type of someone.

I guess it was too much to expect that a highly reputable programmer would be smart enough to use the ignore function on the forum?

You clearly cannot control your obsession. Your sarcastic comments, despite their eloquence and uncontainable intellect, are quite irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[Bock]

. It would make sense for people with lots of contacts to have a better general idea of categories of personalities and behaviours and from it of the possible type of someone.

Yeah sure, we end up with nerds, jocks and bitches. Such depth

 

[redbaron]

I actually think that someone consistently mistaking the distinction between Ne/Ni is very relevant to the thread.

 

[Cherry Cola]

INTP being Ne users can scour the field of possibility much more quickly than Ni so it seems they can come up with an answer by process of elimination with Ti. Ni on the other hand will take what is intuited not by generating possibility but by constricting it to a finite set of elements that are already linked so they do not need to search for more than what they already have. Both Ni and Ne need to be exposed to the subject to grasp it but once this has happened Ni consolidates the evidence(exposure) to what something is because it matches into their other frameworks as subsets well Ne in its tangents may give ample evidence for what something is capable of without knowing its initial state. The framework of Ne is not specific but include all possibilities. INTP can theorize about a type can do well Ni users can see type unfolding from a persons actions.

I dunno, Ni needs exposure, but not necessarily to the subject. Ni is really good at relating subjects to each other. So long as there's something that's works similar to the subject in principle that's enough for Ni.

Ni can do this because it works off of copious amounts of unconsciously processed Se impressions. That's it main source of exposure. For Ne it's not the same because it works off of internal facts (Si) these being the dots that Ne connects. For Ni these connections will have already been drawn. That's why Ni user do not feel the same need as Ne users to test their theories. Sure Ni intuitions are vaguer, they can't go and look at all the Se impressions and see how these have led them to their conclusions in the same way as an Ne user can with their Si dots and Ne connections, because the Se impressions are not facts that lend themselves to expression in plain language. They are more like sensory impressions, fleeting and vague, but they compensate by being legion. Thus when an Ni user comes up with an argument that argument isn't what him or her has intuited, it's not his or hers intuition but something drawn from it. Whereas for an Ne user their argument is their intuition in plain sight.

Ni intuition is holistic from the get go, but if you mistake the output of an Ni user for his or hers intuition it may not appear to be so.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I actually think that someone consistently mistaking the distinction between Ne/Ni is very relevant to the thread.

Thanks for your help in sorting that out Mr "I'm so mature but not mature enough to keep from picking the same bone over and over again because my ego is directly connected to my sense of justice"

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I dunno, Ni needs exposure, but not necessarily to the subject. Ni is really good at relating subjects to each other. So long as there's something that's works similar to the subject in principle that's enough for Ni.

Ni can do this because it works of off copious amounts of unconsciously processed Se impressions. That's it main source of exposure. For Ne it's not the same because it works of off internal facts (Si) these being the dots that Ne connects. For Ni these connections will have already been layed out, that's why Ni user do not feel the same need as Ne users to test their theories. Sure Ni intuitions are vaguer, they can't go and look at all the Se impressions and see how these have led them to their conclusions in the same way as an Ne user can with their Si dots and Ne connections, because the Se impressions are not facts that lend themselves to expression in plain language. They are more like sensory impressions, fleeting and vague, but they compensate by being legion. Thus when an Ni user (who express his intuitions in discrete logical like an Ne user) comes up with an argument that argument isn't his intuition, but something drawn from it. But for an Ne user their argument is their intuition in plain sight.

Ni intuition is holistic from the get go, but if you mistake the output of an Ni user for his or hers intuition it may not appear to be so.

I agree. Ni works backwards from what normally would be considered step by step building up and coming to an impression or conclusion. It forms an Impression/ conclusion first as a Gestalt and then uses Ti to trace how it got there.

CC, I used Gestalt as my understanding but I'm curious if you see it similarly?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I think gestalt fits really well. I mean it's not just the impressions that form the intuition, it's the internal processing as well. So if we consider the impressions to be the parts then gestalt fits the bill.

Plus gestalt sounds wraith-like and cool, so it helps spread the image of Ni as mystic and just transcending in general

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I think gestalt fits really well. I mean it's not just the impressions that form the intuition, it's the internal processing as well. So if we consider the impressions to be the parts then gestalt fits the bill.

Plus gestalt sounds wraith-like and cool, so it helps spread the image of Ni as mystic and just transcending in general

Almost as cool as smoking

 

[Reluctantly]

Ni on the other hand will take what is intuited not by generating possibility but by constricting it to a finite set of elements that are already linked so they do not need to search for more than what they already have.

Honestly, I get tired of hearing this overused idea because no matter how many people say it's incorrect, it always gets falsely reasserted. It's simply not true. Ni is intuition turned inward, heading more toward illuminating abstract notions of reality (such as typology) than outward in seeing abstractions and taking creative opportunity from them; so it does look at many possibilities of how to understand things in terms of concepts and other abstractions and hones in on the ones that best reflect what is being considered.

But just because people see the end result as a narrowing of everything else doesn't mean that's all that's considered...I wish that were true. My thought process would be a lot simpler and I wouldn't feel like I'm always standing on the line between a notion of concrete reality and a dissociated abyss of random connections and meanings.