INTP's versus ISTP's

[Architect]

As mentioned on another thread perhaps we should have a thread on the INTP vs the ISTP.

Summary

INTP vs ISTP youtube


The first big difference between the two similar types is Ne auxiliary versus Se auxiliary. I'll compare myself to my brother (ISTP) to illustrate. This is useful as we both were raised similarly and are close, and both took similar paths in life ultimately (engineering, which isn't an accident as I found it with his help)

• He's sporty (Se) and I'm not (no Se)
  • He watches sports games and on TV with his kids, I either get terrifically bored, or shut down from too much stimulus (at the few times I got dragged to a live game).
  • He is a life long weight lifter and has big bulky muscles. I'm thin and lithe, and all weight lifting does for me is make me stronger. I do lift now simply to combat aging.
  • He wears sporty clothing (baseball cap, etc) which I never do or would frankly
  • ISTP's can often have a particular sports as their hallmark. This is true for ESTP's too, I've known many of both at work and many of them are known for being fanatical skiers.
  • He (and other ISTP's I know) physically dominants a room, it feels like a giant in my house when he comes over.
  • He's owned sports cars over the years, I've owned wrecks (and still do)
  • He's tried many sports. I've only done two things for maintenance, running and stationary cycling (with a recent addition of mild weightlifting). Notice these are both solo sports that offer me a chance to think.
• He's much more physical with his things than I am. Whenever I loan something to him it always comes back more worn and dirty. I take meticulous care of my stuff, he uses his (I'd say abuses). This indicates lack of Se on my part, and I think shows some Si which is a focused form of externalization.
• He's much more hooked into what the collective thinks. He's had successful side business that I've struggled with, because he knows what the collective wants (e.g. some simple/dumb iPhone app) while I'm thinking of abstruse ideas (e.g. modeling tools). This is Ne versus Se directly.
• We're both well educated at top universities (post-graduate) I've continued my education via online courses, but he stopped with school. ISTP's I've known have little interest in continuing education, though INTP's can't seem to stop.
• I've always been much more gadgety than him, where he's more focused on gadgets. Let me explain, in conversation I'll usually not talk about whatever cool tech I have, but would rather talk ideas and theories. He knows a lot of theory due to work and education, but he rather loves talking gadgets. Conversely though he doesn't acquire them as I do, seeing them as a practical/non thrifty expenditure. For me a good gadget is a tool that extends my capabilities (this is a trait direct out of PUM for NT's), whereas he's seeing the practical need or not of items. However in conversation it flips as I said, again indicating the Se focus on the real/physical and Ne focus on the unreal.
• With money, I'm more generally thrifty than him. He'll spend (I believe) lots of money on conveniences - food out, services, etc. I'll not spend money that way. But he doesn't spend money on his interests, whereas if I feel the need for a new computer or musical thing I'll buy it. I've seen this with other INTP's, we will tend to be thrifty on everything except for when it really matters which is our core work and interests.
• ISTP's tend to have work they enjoy, INTP's tend to have a calling. INTP's therefore obsess about their life work much more than the practical ISTP's who often buckle down it.
• I've always straddled humanities and sciences (Ne spanning the gamut of knowledge) where he is sometimes almost hostile to art and has little interest in the humanities.
• ISTP's tend to be more sexually aware earlier than INTP's. I didn't start really dating until 19 or 20, and only after getting prodded. To me previously I was highly aware of women, but in the abstract (Ne). Real women didn't enter the picture as I was more in love with the idea of a woman. ISTP's tend to start dating earlier.
• I'll obsess and think through a theory compulsively until I'm satisfied with the answer (and usually not then) where he'll find an initial theory and stick with it. For instance, health. I've worked on this for decades, where he just read the Atkins book (that all his peers were reading) and stuck with it.
• ISTP's will Se will generally be more comfortable with societal norms than INTP's. For example, he is a 'cultural catholic' (whatever that means) where I eschew it entirely. Notice in both cases we have Ti which is an independent, 'my rules only' kind of function, but when modulated through Se or Ne it plays out differently in the world.
• Se is more 'rough and ready' than the tertiary Si of the INTP, but it doesn't gloss over details as INTP's so easily do (due to Ne). ISTP's easily get the details right - though they can be rough with them sometimes - but INTP's will actually be more careful if they develop their Si sufficiently. But with Ne as second in command it will never have as easy a time with details as with ISTP's Se. ISTP's who develop careful habits (many colleagues) can become almost as particular as ISTJ's.
• ISTP's tend to have more narrow interests throughout life compared to the Ne far ranging INTP's. Conversely they tend to have wider physical interests (sports, events, activities, traveling ...). INTP's will tend to have more far ranging hobbies (writing, drawing, art, music, etc ...)

Having said all this ISTP's and INTP's are quite similar, more so in my opinion then the ENTP's who actually share the same functions as the INTP but in a different order. Spotting the difference between INTP's and ISTP's can be challenging, but with practice it becomes obvious. The main clues are to look at Ne versus Se in the individual.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i will quote my own splendid comparison and no one will read it

"ISTP yes, look at how he's similar to one dude where i work who is also ISTP. just google it and you will see his resemblance to other ISTP's. one of the first pictures has the "well whadd'ya know, there ya go" facial expression which is a product of ISTP as such: what we have is Ni, not Ne. we get _the_ solution, confidently presented. also what we have is Se, not Ne. it is expressed firmly in the realm of direct physicality; an immediate response to the situation at hand, not the conceptually enthused Ne drift which is substantial only in its childish appeal to sympathy. but it is Ti; both could be. the difference is that ISTP often has an easier time comprehending the real effects of its perpetual contrarianism, by checking with Se. ISTP often becomes a charicature of its Ti. you will get the "teasing quality" shown in the picture. Ti-Ne on the other hand is less concerned with this, as it is less certain. it generates multiple possibilities and ends up in social paranoia and shyness as the preferred coping with inferior Fe. it does not enjoy the same comfort, trust and "silent strong type" slot. but neither does it ever sacrifice personal ideas for convenience. ISTP is more sociable and reliable, INTP is strange, erratic and threatening (in some intangible spooky way) but cute and harmless, a less serious creature in the eyes of society. INTP will never convince anyone and will have ideas that rarely pertain or connect to the reality of people. ISTP is the arbiter of level-headed efficiency, a highly useful person, respected regardless of whether acknowledged.

http://i.lv3.hbo.com/assets/images/s...david-1024.jpg

here is the picture i was talking about. it shows an ISTP delivering its crude, world-weary insight. the merit is in wise timing and application of common sense. INTP has its merits in novel content but screws up the timing and application."

 

[onesteptwostep]

I really like that DavePowers guy. I wish he made more videos..

Architect, just a question, what do you think a female ISTP would be like? What you mentioned was a male ISTP.

 

[Architect]

Architect, just a question, what do you think a female ISTP would be like? What you mentioned was a male ISTP.

That's a great question. I've not known, or at least noticed a lot of female ISTP's, but have known a lot of male ones. Let me think ... yes, well it's inconclusive due to lack of familiarity and analysis, but there are several women I've known who are likely candidates, as are public examples.

This could be faulty but I'll take a stab at it. I think the prototypical ISTP female would likely be the Trekkie nerd type. Sensors tend to club together in speciality interest clubs and become experts, IST types in particular as Lenore Thompson notes. I'll frequent those kinds of boards and clubs as I get interested in a topic, but invariably drop out and don't make it my life as they do.

Trekkie's are a good example of the ST nerd though. Consider the physicality of their interest, they love taking something imaginative like a Sci Fi series and making it real. This is usually an indication of an inferior intuition, as S dominants try to grapple with their shadowy inferior and tertiary (religion is full of this too). INTP's are unlikely to go that far, and be content with at most watching the shows.

 

[Analyzer]

I agree with the general idea that the difference of course revolves around the middle functions - Ne/Se, Ni/Si.

In broad terms the ISTP is more zeroed and focused on certain activities and can actually be more stubborn or narrow in the information they pursue. Se observes the external, literally whats in front of them, then goes deep to try to understand them or see its relation to other things(Ni). I think this why they won't be as curious or open to possibilities(Ne) as the INTP. The Si also brings a sense of conservatism to the INTP when it comes to sensing related things so this is why they aren't as materially adventurous.

Traveling is a good example of the differences. The both might do it for the experience and novelty(Pe), but the INTP would want to perserve a mood or atmosphere of the environment(Si). The ISTP would be more focused on what the trip has to offer in the particulars and how its fit into their understanding, but not necessarily paying attention to the overall scene(Ni).

 

[Architect]

In broad terms the ISTP is more zeroed and focused on certain activities and can actually be more stubborn or narrow in the information they pursue.

Yes! Exactly, ISTP's I've known have a stubborn streak a mile wide (ISFJ's do too, many S types do).

The Si also brings a sense of conservatism to the INTP when it comes to sensing related things so this is why they aren't as materially adventurous.

Traveling is a good example of the differences. The both might do it for the experience and novelty(Pe), but the INTP would want to perserve a mood or atmosphere of the environment(Si).

Yes exactly. I've spent a lot of time in foreign travel and you known with that I didn't get around too much. As much as I was driven to do it (via programming that I should like to travel), but the experience was always overwhelming. I'd end up falling into a set routine, visiting the same things (a castle or whatever) every weekend. Basically create a pattern and routine for myself, and frankly compared to the Se types I sometimes went with, I'd not do half as much as they did.

 

[OrLevitate]

Spotting the difference between INTP's and ISTP's can be challenging, but with practice it becomes obvious. The main clues are to look at Ne versus Se in the individual.

The data you used was very general, but more importantly it isn't triangulated. It's only data of a person relative to how YOU see them. Somebody else could've picked out different "defining traits" due to them reflecting off a different prism. You think you're "INTP" which you take as the cornerstone of all of your data.

You need to look at the before and after, the cause and effect of those bits of data, relate it to other stuffs. That person could be literally any type. Look at the broad strokes
of his life story, not if he's wearing baseball caps.

Spoiler

You took an engineer that likes sports, looked at 4 dichotomies, decided that istp is the sports liking engineer, (not that the sports liking engineer is istp), then extrapolated on the data for generalities that you can apply to ~1/16th of the world's population by noticing the idiosyncrasies of his that a. line up with your original hypothesis (that he's istp) and b. reflect you as INTP

You'll never stop using the mental construct of mbti as a faulty bit of concrete data, and it's a very common limitation that mbti enthusiasts hit. They're enthusiastic because they like the identity they got from it, so they're more concerned with making sure that they remain the type they think they are which never allows for them to see the other people, the actual concrete data from which the mental construct is ultimately based on, as what they are, which is the things that FORM typology, not the typology forming them. But you will never, ever, get past that hurdle.

 

[Architect]

The data you used was very general, but more importantly it isn't triangulated.

Oh come on, I'm not writing a fucking academic paper here. Obviously it's observations, and you have no clue as to what I really think. I could put you all in a classroom and we'd have a nice few semesters discussing this, largely through case studies. Well we've all got lives, right? And it shouldn't have to be said, I would think it would be obvious to such a group of brilliant minds, but nobody is saying these are universal. They are observational data which we use to attempt to discover hidden variables, a statistical and difficult process. This is grade school science folks.

You'll never stop using the mental construct of mbti as a faulty bit of concrete data, and it's a very common limitation that mbti enthusiasts hit.

What the hell does that mean? A "faulty bit of concrete data". You have to learn to communicate better first before complaining about others.

They're enthusiastic because they like the identity they got from it, so they're more concerned with making sure that they remain the type they think they are which never allows for them to see the other people, the actual concrete data from which the mental construct is ultimately based on, as what they are, which is the things that FORM typology, not the typology forming them. But you will never, ever, get past that hurdle.

100% grade-A bullshit. What was that one on my list, assuming too much? Ad-hominems? Attacking the person instead of the idea? Misrepresenting the idea?

It's a wonder I even bother .. look, if you want to have a discussion, have a discussion! Bring up alternate points, enrich us all with your intelligence.

 

[OrLevitate]

no u,

k well.

y u is typing poples?

 

[OrLevitate]

you've got nothing to add though, you don't understand the context jung was working in when he decided to have his own go at reducing that context of universals as he saw them into a more refined system, which was actually a heavily artistic personal expression of his view on people, and existence, the "psychological types", he was making his own uber model of everything. nobody even gets that,

then they get caught up in the functions. it happened to me to, when i initially started learning about this stuff. it's logical, it's like "no, all the descriptions for the types aren't holding up to cross examination so much, but the function stacks is a better way of getting at a possibly more in-line-with-reality and more consistent construct of categorizing people by the preference of their mental functions which is the stage of understanding I see you as being in. they say psychology is a hub science because it's basically just a bunch of heuristics that connects tons of other sciences. Jung tried to make a sort of ultimate set of heuristics in regards to understanding and connecting "primordial" universal archetypes with disorders with complexes with dreams with identity.

So then when you take the cliche but best, structuralisttttttt approach you see the interconnection of the mbti with the enneagram with the zodiac with astrology with greek myth with roman myth with literature ofmg literature and chinese medicine and the seasons and elements and how this spine of ideasthesia shows itself in religions, in interactions, identities, everywhere. and it's awesome, and i want to refine the thoughts but everyone's furiously stagnant in their understaning

 

[dark+matters]

That's a great question. I've not known, or at least noticed a lot of female ISTP's, but have known a lot of male ones. Let me think ... yes, well it's inconclusive due to lack of familiarity and analysis, but there are several women I've known who are likely candidates, as are public examples.

This could be faulty but I'll take a stab at it. I think the prototypical ISTP female would likely be the Trekkie nerd type. Sensors tend to club together in speciality interest clubs and become experts, IST types in particular as Lenore Thompson notes. I'll frequent those kinds of boards and clubs as I get interested in a topic, but invariably drop out and don't make it my life as they do.

Trekkie's are a good example of the ST nerd though. Consider the physicality of their interest, they love taking something imaginative like a Sci Fi series and making it real. This is usually an indication of an inferior intuition, as S dominants try to grapple with their shadowy inferior and tertiary (religion is full of this too). INTP's are unlikely to go that far, and be content with at most watching the shows.

Bronto- I read your reply! LOL

I can only think of one definite ISTP woman I've met. Someone who was pretty influential on my life was an ISTP female. She was very zen. No matter how much chaos was in the room, she could handle it. Brutally honest (in a problematic way sometimes, for the uninitiated)... extremely pragmatic. One of the most physically competent people I've ever met and a master in her profession. Very loyal to family and friends and very interested in building and maintaining her house. (Kind of a bro.) Responsible, but consistently working towards and needing freedom from too many societal or financial restraints. Financially generous with friends and strangers alike. Interested in and skilled at dancing and sports. Maintaining her body was very important to her. Little to no patience for theoretical discussions, but quietly maintained a hard-earned personal philosophy about life. She was heading for 40 when I was in my early twenties.

She was really different from me in that I was very fussy about details about where things came from, how they were made, nuances, how people felt, why (basically how and why), and she would come to extremely fast judgments based on past experience or experimentation whereas I was constantly compelled to learn more and get more education and write and postulate and rationalize and she did not understand the appeal of that. I was into art and creating or studying things and she was more into alternating periods of intense physical work followed by taking lots of vacations and relaxing. Responsible but very dedicated to being herself with complete freedom at all times. Traveling doesn't do nearly as much for me, I don't care that much about where I am or who I'm with at any given time so long as I'm left alone to think and daydream for long enough chunks of time, and I was far more apt to question who I was and why I was and what being a who was... if that... makes sense... LOL She was apt to perceive that as sort of "show-offy" or pointless.

And although she wanted freedom, she was also much quicker to accept societal norms as reality whereas I absolutely do not. I don't have that same level of regard for working all day at a materialistic job for our consumerist society, then grabbing a beer or going to church on the weekends.

Another difference: unless I have specific directions to do otherwise, or I'm nerding out on a topic of interest or trying to pump people for interesting information, I'll generally just sit quietly and the absorb information others give me, including their emotions and ideology. I won't say much and will passively accept perhaps without agreeing, but she will immediately give her exact opinion. She will come up with quick, incisive ideas for taking immediate action without tailoring it to anyone. Definitely a Ti user. Very quick and intelligent. She encouraged me to get off my butt and move to LA and I have ended up being very happy with much of her other advice too. I'm not sure I could say we're all that similar, but we definitely admired each others' different strengths, and I still think I teeter on the edges of INFP too.

Bruce Lee- ISTP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsrTEi_DLbM

 

[TheManBeyond]

do you think that depthness is a N trait?, i mean in conversations some people expect a lot about you in the sense that they want to have something interesting back, normally they look for facts, they don't usually care about personal stories that might led to something inside the topic you are exploring but they rather prefer to get real facts, as if they were watching some kind of youtube documetary or a tourism guide. I noticed this the other day because everytime i brought to the table something i had seen on the news or videos people got so pumped up (you say this right? lol).
For me to do this really tires me because even if i usually read and see tons of weird things here in internet it is almost impossible for me to recall them on a social context for wathever reason it is. I mean i can recall them sometimes but i've noticed that some other guys i know are much about talking as if they were researchers and we were in a conference everytime, but they are not really about analisis, they are about exposing things they learnt.
It might be envy. Have you noticed this behaviour in INTPs more than in ISTPs or the opposite?
So to resume N vs S, depthness in what sense? in the sense of knowing tons of facts and most important recalling them or in the sense of going beyond what's expected, analisis - interiorization - possible scenarios?
Am i probably a weird xSFP¿?

 

[Architect]

I can only think of one definite ISTP woman I've met. Someone who was pretty influential on my life was an ISTP female. She was very zen. No matter how much chaos was in the room, she could handle it.

Yes! The women I've known like this are very zen. Actually I wouldn't call it zen, nor stoic, but contained and self maintained maybe. IST women tend to be like this, INT women too, but in a somewhat different way. Good commentary otherwise.

do you think that depthness is a N trait?

Depth is Introversion, breadth is extroversion.

Sensation is here, Intuition is there.

I didn't quite follow the tenor of your question, but if you are an IS you would tend to be more here and deep. If you were a IN you would tend to be more there and deep.

 

[Analyzer]

Going along with what Architect said, Sensors are superficial while Intuitives are radical.

Introverted Sensors are superficial but deep-they go below the surface to understand what works and is possible in the present.
Extroverted Sensors scan everything that's in front of them, they are like explorers testing and seeing what they can do in the present.

Introverted Intuitives go beyond the atmosphere and look at things from the outside to see the meaning behind things.
Extroverted Intuitives are beyond the earth but they consider themselves part of it and try to manipulate it.

 

[scorpiomover]

Going along with what Architect said, Sensors are superficial while Intuitives are radical.

If you're a Sensor, then you're entitled to your opinion. But if you're claiming to be an intuitive, then that just sounds like you have a superiority complex.

 

[Analyzer]

If you're a Sensor, then you're entitled to your opinion. But if you're claiming to be an intuitive, then that just sounds like you have a superiority complex.

Possibly, but how come though? I never suggested being superficial or radical is more superior then the other. Look up the true meaning of superficial, I'm not talking about it in a material sense which everyone refers to that word nowadays.

Being radical means you have less patience with "everyday" type thing and want to look at it from a more abstract angle.. I would say superficial people are better equipped to handle more practical matters or at least issues that need to be resolved in the present. Good example is politics. Superficial won't concern themselves with political philosophy. On the other hand radical people are usually stuck in the arm chair.

 

[Architect]

Going along with what Architect said, Sensors are superficial while Intuitives are radical.

If you're a Sensor, then you're entitled to your opinion. But if you're claiming to be an intuitive, then that just sounds like you have a superiority complex.

If you take away the negative connotations then what Analyzer said is essentially true. On par, Sensors will be more superficial than Intuitives, and Extroverts than Introverts. That's by definition, sensation is about what is physically real (past or present) while intuition is about what is not physically real, so one will be focused on the surface, and the other about the unseen below or beyond the surface.

There is a negative sense to this, so let's flip it around. Intuition is vaporous and flakey, while Sensation is strong and real. Essentially the same concept but now the Sensor sounds like the better side.

Radical is probably a word I'd be careful of. Yes Intuition tends to be more radical than Sensation in a sense because it generally desires change, but there are many more reasons for that too and radical Sensors aren't uncommon. Here's a joke to illustrate ...

An Intuitive revolutionary would want to overthrow the government so as to try a new form of politics that probably wouldn't work, while a Sensor revolutionary would overthrow the government to put themselves in power instead.

 

[Alias]

That joke is exactly what happened in Soviet Russia. Lenin, a likely INTJ, ousts the czar in hope for a new government to pave the way to perfect democracy, although it would never work because absolutely no government form is perfect. Then Lenin has three strokes, and Stalin takes power by posing in a few vegetable-pictures with paralyzed Lenin. Stalin, probably an ESTJ but certainly a Sensor, makes the whole movement all about him and goes on installing his views in everything, and putting whoever he wanted into gulags.

 

[scorpiomover]

Possibly, but how come though? I'm not talking about it in a material sense which everyone refers to that word nowadays.

I'm an INTP. My Ti calculates future consequences. My Ne uses what people normally do to calculate those consequences, which in this case, would be how people normally refer to that word (Si), and how they'd react upon thinking that Sensors are superficial and Intuitives are radical. My Fe doesn't like when those consequences are harmful to others, when they didn't deserve that harm.

You might be a young INTP, who has not yet learned to assess future consequences by objective pattern-matching of general human behaviour with Ne. So you might not have developed that skill yet. But I have, and it's an Fe violation.

I never suggested being superficial or radical is more superior then the other. Look up the true meaning of superficial,

I did:

Google definition of superficial:

1. existing or occurring at or on the surface.
2. appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely.
3. not thorough, deep, or complete; cursory.
4. denoting a quantity of a material expressed in terms of area covered rather than linear dimension or volume.

IME, Sensors TALK superficially. Sensors think that "actions speak louder than words". So they provide concrete physical results, and so don't need a rational explanation to prove their point. So they tend to be more efficient, and give only a quick and superficial rational explanation.

NTs rely on their intuition for ideas. They tend to not want to take the time to build solid empirical results, as this wastes a lot of time, and being that NTs like to master the unknown, solid emprical results are often unreliable. So they tend to rely on rational explanations to justify their views.

People often initially make the mistake of assuming their natural way of thinking, and then try to interpret what others say and do in terms of their own thinking, as if the other person was exactly the same type as them.

So when an NT hears a Sensor only giving a superficial rational explanation, and has not yet developed the skill of understanding how others think who are not like him, he thinks of the Sensor's conversation as if he was an NT like himself. If the NT would give such a superficial explanation, it would only be because he's not really given the matter any serious consideration yet, and so is only being superficial. Since the Sensor is only giving a superficial explanation, he then assumes that the Sensor is being superficial.

The Sensor has a solid empirical proof, though. But if an NT doesn't even have a rational explanation, then he's not even thought about the matter at all, and so almost certainly hasn't even tried to get ANY empirical data AT ALL. So when the NT assumes that the Sensor is talking like an NT, he assumes that any claims of empirical proof that the Sensor might point to, HAS to be complete rubbish. So he completely ignores the empirical data, and doesn't even bother to even give it the most cursory glance to see if it even MIGHT stand up to rational scrutiny.

When, however, the NT learns the different communication styles of each type and utilises that knowledge to understand others better, then the NT knows what to look for. Suddenly, the NT sees that the Sensor has solid empirical results that are often far more reliable than the NT's rational ideas, that often, have only been proved in theory, and not in reality. Then he often has far more respect for Sensor's ideas than NTs, because the Sensor's ideas are far more reliable.


Being radical means you have less patience with "everyday" type thing and want to look at it from a more abstract angle.[/quote]

Google definition of radical:

adjective
1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
2. characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive.
3. relating to the root of something, in particular:
4. very good; excellent.

noun
1. a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims.
2. a group of atoms behaving as a unit in a number of compounds.
3. the root or base form of a word.
4. a quantity forming or expressed as the root of another.

My Ne tells me that the definition that I bolded, tends to be what most people understand as "radical". If you wish to use a term that means that you have less patience with "everyday" type thing and want to look at it from a more abstract angle, then just say "abstract".

I would say superficial people are better equipped to handle more practical matters or at least issues that need to be resolved in the present.

Concrete people are good with practical matters, such as car mechanics. But most people would NOT want a "superficial" person fixing their car, as then the car would only seem to work on the surface. But the minute they'd get it on a main road and take it up to 50mph, the engine would blow, the car would overturn, and they'd lose their lives. Same goes for the guy who fixes their plumbing, and their electricity. So the very LAST thing that anyone would want is a superficial person doing practical matters.

Good example is politics. Superficial won't concern themselves with political philosophy.

Superficial people are happy to express opinions on political philosophy, because it's all up in the air, and is NOT going to be put into motion in the forseeable future. So it sounds good on the surface, and won't be tested by reality to show that their ideas are complete garbage.

On the other hand radical people are usually stuck in the arm chair.

Radicals want to change things. Being stuck in an arm chair, means nothing changes at all. So that doesn't work for them AT ALL.

On the other hand, it works fantastically well for superficial people, because their ideas will never be tested and proved to be complete garbage.

It's the other way around, mate. Armchair political philosophers are some of the superficial people one can get. They're only radical in a superficial way. Once you turn to them and ask them why they don't put their ideas into motion, they immediately shirk off such a suggestion, because they know their ideas are so superficial, that anyone trying to put them into motion would often find that their ideas were bound to fail, often lead to extremely undesirable consequences, and often lead to getting shot and being put in prison.

I applaud your efforts, which was to theorise ideas with Ti. However, it was evident that they were biased towards NTs and against Sensors. So that made my Fe demand that I analyse it, which my Ti and Ne did. Your ideas were Ti-valid, i.e. if we just looked at your ideas, and nothing else, they sounded quite plausible on the surface. But once I applied me Si and Ne to check them against real-life facts and general human behaviour, they were obviously a complete bust, and hence were superficial in themselves.

This is extremely common for NTs. I was like this when I was young myself. Half my Ti ideas were brilliant. The other half were complete rubbish, due to being completely out of touch with reality, which everyone else saw, and laughed at me for being such a nincompoop.

However, once I made the effort to fact-check my ideas against general objective patterns such as general human behaviour of most humans, by "people-watching", and by recalling the general patterns that I had objectively discerned, and stopped relying on what I had been TOLD was general human behaviour (such as that people who just do and don't give rational explanations are thickos who can only act competently when they do as they're told), then suddenly, I had an extremely good idea which of my ideas were garbage, and then the ideas that I told people went from being 50% utter garbage to being mostly dead-one, and the rest, if not right, were still worth listening to. It transformed me from a stereotypical INTP that has his head in the clouds but has no grasp of reality, to someone who other people listen to like I have very good ideas, that are well worth listening to.

You're still in the speculative phase. Develop your people-watching skills, and ignore what you've been told about people, except as speculative hypotheses of others that lack any solid proof, and you'll find that people will agree with you very, very often, and when they don't, they'll still respect your ideas anyway.

P.S. Please, please, take this seriously. I put an hour and a half into writing this post, and it's based on decades of personal experience. You can be sceptical of my notions. Just don't be dismissive. Try out both your current way for a couple of weeks, observe the general pattern of the objective results, and then try out my way for a couple of weeks, and again observe the general pattern of the objective results. I'm sure that you will be so pleased with the results, that you'll decide to never use Ti without checking it against Ne's independently sceptical objective pattern-matching again.

 

[Analyzer]

Google definition of superficial:IME, Sensors TALK superficially. Sensors think that "actions speak louder than words". So they provide concrete physical results, and so don't need a rational explanation to prove their point. So they tend to be more efficient, and give only a quick and superficial rational explanation.

NTs rely on their intuition for ideas. They tend to not want to take the time to build solid empirical results, as this wastes a lot of time, and being that NTs like to master the unknown, solid emprical results are often unreliable. So they tend to rely on rational explanations to justify their views.

People often initially make the mistake of assuming their natural way of thinking, and then try to interpret what others say and do in terms of their own thinking, as if the other person was exactly the same type as them.

So when an NT hears a Sensor only giving a superficial rational explanation, and has not yet developed the skill of understanding how others think who are not like him, he thinks of the Sensor's conversation as if he was an NT like himself. If the NT would give such a superficial explanation, it would only be because he's not really given the matter any serious consideration yet, and so is only being superficial. Since the Sensor is only giving a superficial explanation, he then assumes that the Sensor is being superficial.

The Sensor has a solid empirical proof, though. But if an NT doesn't even have a rational explanation, then he's not even thought about the matter at all, and so almost certainly hasn't even tried to get ANY empirical data AT ALL. So when the NT assumes that the Sensor is talking like an NT, he assumes that any claims of empirical proof that the Sensor might point to, HAS to be complete rubbish. So he completely ignores the empirical data, and doesn't even bother to even give it the most cursory glance to see if it even MIGHT stand up to rational scrutiny.

When, however, the NT learns the different communication styles of each type and utilises that knowledge to understand others better, then the NT knows what to look for. Suddenly, the NT sees that the Sensor has solid empirical results that are often far more reliable than the NT's rational ideas, that often, have only been proved in theory, and not in reality. Then he often has far more respect for Sensor's ideas than NTs, because the Sensor's ideas are far more reliable.

I applaud your efforts, which was to theorise ideas with Ti. However, it was evident that they were biased towards NTs and against Sensors. So that made my Fe demand that I analyse it, which my Ti and Ne did. Your ideas were Ti-valid, i.e. if we just looked at your ideas, and nothing else, they sounded quite plausible on the surface. But once I applied me Si and Ne to check them against real-life facts and general human behaviour, they were obviously a complete bust, and hence were superficial in themselves.

This is extremely common for NTs. I was like this when I was young myself. Half my Ti ideas were brilliant. The other half were complete rubbish, due to being completely out of touch with reality, which everyone else saw, and laughed at me for being such a nincompoop.

I think this a fair critique but there are arguments for rationality over empiricism. I think both have it's place, but some like Plato believed truth was only possible in the abstract hence his ideas on platonic forms. Reality(the empirical world) may just be an imperfect form of what we see. Sensors probably think NT's or NF's ideas are out of touch with reality but what does this exactly mean? I like how you say we should focus on how different types think and communicate and not to have a bias. This is good but I don't believe you should comprise what you think in order to satisfy others perceptions. Sensors ideas are only more reliable given you perceive information the same way. Your Ne/Si information gathering may be based on what others have already established.

Maybe there is something to say about how the general ideas of philosophy and how they correlate with psychology. If different types have different perceptions of truth and knowledge, what does this say about the role of the individual?

Google definition of radical:My Ne tells me that the definition that I bolded, tends to be what most people understand as "radical". If you wish to use a term that means that you have less patience with "everyday" type thing and want to look at it from a more abstract angle, then just say "abstract".

Radical as being focused on the root as the first definition says. I didn't imply that noun that most people think of when they think of the word Radical.

Concrete people are good with practical matters, such as car mechanics. But most people would NOT want a "superficial" person fixing their car, as then the car would only seem to work on the surface. But the minute they'd get it on a main road and take it up to 50mph, the engine would blow, the car would overturn, and they'd lose their lives. Same goes for the guy who fixes their plumbing, and their electricity. So the very LAST thing that anyone would want is a superficial person doing practical matters.

I would prefer a "superfical" or concrete person who doesn't get sidetracked by the abstract theoretical implications and gets the car to work as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Superficial people are happy to express opinions on political philosophy, because it's all up in the air, and is NOT going to be put into motion in the forseeable future. So it sounds good on the surface, and won't be tested by reality to show that their ideas are complete garbage.

Radicals want to change things. Being stuck in an arm chair, means nothing changes at all. So that doesn't work for them AT ALL.

On the other hand, it works fantastically well for superficial people, because their ideas will never be tested and proved to be complete garbage.

It's the other way around, mate. Armchair political philosophers are some of the superficial people one can get. They're only radical in a superficial way. Once you turn to them and ask them why they don't put their ideas into motion, they immediately shirk off such a suggestion, because they know their ideas are so superficial, that anyone trying to put them into motion would often find that their ideas were bound to fail, often lead to extremely undesirable consequences, and often lead to getting shot and being put in prison.

Not necessarily. I consider myself a "radical" in how I think of things but sort of conservative in regards to mass changes in the world. I try to focus at root level of issues, but think drastic and quick changes are dangerous across the board and usually ineffective. I would rather focus on how I can develop myself than try to enact any sort of revolution.

However, once I made the effort to fact-check my ideas against general objective patterns such as general human behaviour of most humans, by "people-watching", and by recalling the general patterns that I had objectively discerned, and stopped relying on what I had been TOLD was general human behaviour (such as that people who just do and don't give rational explanations are thickos who can only act competently when they do as they're told), then suddenly, I had an extremely good idea which of my ideas were garbage, and then the ideas that I told people went from being 50% utter garbage to being mostly dead-one, and the rest, if not right, were still worth listening to. It transformed me from a stereotypical INTP that has his head in the clouds but has no grasp of reality, to someone who other people listen to like I have very good ideas, that are well worth listening to.

You're still in the speculative phase. Develop your people-watching skills, and ignore what you've been told about people, except as speculative hypotheses of others that lack any solid proof, and you'll find that people will agree with you very, very often, and when they don't, they'll still respect your ideas anyway.

P.S. Please, please, take this seriously. I put an hour and a half into writing this post, and it's based on decades of personal experience. You can be sceptical of my notions. Just don't be dismissive. Try out both your current way for a couple of weeks, observe the general pattern of the objective results, and then try out my way for a couple of weeks, and again observe the general pattern of the objective results. I'm sure that you will be so pleased with the results, that you'll decide to never use Ti without checking it against Ne's independently sceptical objective pattern-matching again.

Thanks for your input and long response. I agree that balancing Ti Ne is an issue. Being extreme in either one causes one to have a less complete view.

I think the main trouble with our discussion is the miscommunication in regards to the terms superficial and radical. We seem to have different scales of measuring how they are used. But if we can get ride of those words because of the negative connotations than I would revise what I said and say Intuitives are more abstract while Sensors are more concrete. Those seem like nice and friendly words.

 

[dark+matters]

I thought that someone might be interested in checking out Bruce Lee's book Tao of Jeet June Do. He earned a degree in philosophy and his book is a magnum-opus. Definitely not superficial (with the negative connotation) in its scope about the nature of our lives. "Living in the moment" is also an essential component of Buddhism, sports, and performance instruction.

http://smile.amazon.com/Tao-Jeet-Ku...426460748&sr=8-1&keywords=tao+of+jeet+kune+do

 

[TBerg]

scorpiomover has excellent powers of discernment.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think this a fair critique but there are arguments for rationality over empiricism. I think both have it's place, but some like Plato believed truth was only possible in the abstract hence his ideas on platonic forms. Reality(the empirical world) may just be an imperfect form of what we see. Sensors probably think NT's or NF's ideas are out of touch with reality but what does this exactly mean? I like how you say we should focus on how different types think and communicate and not to have a bias. This is good but I don't believe you should comprise what you think in order to satisfy others perceptions. Sensors ideas are only more reliable given you perceive information the same way. Your Ne/Si information gathering may be based on what others have already established.

Oh, I don't want to be a Sensor. Ti-Ne works exceedingly well for me, and I expect, for you too.

But when I'm talking to an ISTJ, I have to translate my Ti-Ne into Si-Te sentences before I speak. Otherwise, the ISTJ will think that I'm saying some airy-fairy nonsense that needs to be stomped on, to keep me grounded in reality.

Likewise, when I'm listening to the ISTJ speak, I have to remember that it's Si-Te that is being said, and to translate that into Ti-Ne before I even consider trying to understand the ISTJ. If I don't, and just try to understand the ISTJ's words normally, I tend to get so infuriated with the massive lack of logic and crazy blind adherence to societal norms beyond anything that might be reasonable, that I find myself going into an argument that never ends, usually over the most trivial of things, that I would normally think that are so unimportant, that if I argued over those things, then I'd have gone clinically insane.

Maybe there is something to say about how the general ideas of philosophy and how they correlate with psychology. If different types have different perceptions of truth and knowledge, what does this say about the role of the individual?

Different types tend to hold different philosophical perspectives. However, these are perspectives that they live by, and use to reason with, solve problems with, and to make decisions with, all the time. So usually, it's a lot, lot bigger than some philosophical argument. Like the difference between a morbidly obese and a professional bodybuilder arguing about the benefits of exercise.

Radical as being focused on the root as the first definition says. I didn't imply that noun that most people think of when they think of the word Radical.

I did consider that. But still, not quite what Ns are about.

I would prefer a "superfical" or concrete person who doesn't get sidetracked by the abstract theoretical implications and gets the car to work as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Glad that we're on the same page here. I'd rather have an INTP for the things that INTPs are good at, and ISTJs at the things that ISTJs are good at. I want an ISTJ doing my accounts, an ISTP fixing my car, and an INTP analysing my ideas and plans for flaws. That's actually the role I serve with my ENFJ friend. Ti-Ne does remarkably well at keeping him out of trouble by pointing out when his strategies will probably land him in hot water.

Not necessarily. I consider myself a "radical" in how I think of things but sort of conservative in regards to mass changes in the world. I try to focus at root level of issues, but think drastic and quick changes are dangerous across the board and usually ineffective. I would rather focus on how I can develop myself than try to enact any sort of revolution.

Moi aussi (me also). My ideas, if you see my posts, are ridiculously radical. But when it comes to changing society, I'm for keeping changes as minimal and reversible as possible, and doing only those that we can be absolutely sure that almost zero downsides. I've seen so many new political policies and decisions go horribly bad, that I gave up on the notion of political change being anything but "mostly harmful" several years ago.

I think the main trouble with our discussion is the miscommunication in regards to the terms superficial and radical. We seem to have different scales of measuring how they are used. But if we can get ride of those words because of the negative connotations than I would revise what I said and say Intuitives are more abstract while Sensors are more concrete. Those seem like nice and friendly words.

Yes, they are much more palatable to me. Also, were we not on a public forum, and in a 1-2-1 setting in private, I would have been happy to ask you to explain what you meant in detail, and then use your terminology. I had no problem per se with using different terminology. Just not in this setting, where anyone can read our posts and get the wrong idea.

 

[Stinger]

We're smart Action Jacksons. You're active smartasses.

 

[Sinny91]

I'm currently attempting to date a male ISTP.
I say 'attempting' because 'it's' not coming as smoothly as these events usually do.

We recognised similiar people in each other as soon as we met; we exchanged one look that spoke a thousand words, and ended up looking each other up after the simple exchange.

Since then however, some conversations have been strained.
He is very 'zen' like, as it's been put. In fact, he's almost robot like.
Which suits me fine when it comes to 'soppyness', but even in humour he's quite reserved.

He talks about his emotions, (too much IMO, a running traite of ISTP's), but expresses none.
It's intruiging to me, but slightly unnerving. Makes him difficult to read, I can usually read people easily - if I'm attempting.

I do feel like I have to reign myself in from saying all things intuitive, and abstract.
He's quite solidly down to earth and in present moment.

So, for the first time in a while, I'm approaching with hesitation.
I wonder how it will turn out?

 

[ENTP lurker]

ISTPs aka Clint Eastwoods. I don't really like them that much. They seem so hostile not so much as ISFPs but close. (If you want intellectually least curios personality that is ISFP.) They take situations under control with their physicality.

Socionics says that I'm ISTPs supervisor. I totally relate to that. They have potential but you can not talk to them about theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. You know the real questions. And the hostile attitude. The funny thing is that they have some sort of inferiority complex towards me because I can twist their brains to a direction that never occurred to them.


Architect is most likely INTP Ti subtype because he finds ISTPs closer to him.

 

[Spirit]

Younger ISTP's are far more abrasive. Older ISTP with mastery of their skills would not last long with an entp supervisor.

ISTP hate micromanaging with a passion. I doubt that an entp talking about a subject an ISTP has mastered would be twisted by your comments.

An ISTP quickly would disregard wasted words and tell you to get to the fucking point.