• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Whats your definition of an INTP?

Green

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
18
#1
So, theres this pattern ive found in MBTI discussions where people state a type is a certain [trait/thing/habit]. Every NT believes theyre either some tortured genius, or gifted thought provocateur.

The problem I find is with the words logic and truth. Formal logic is for sure a thing that for sure requires study. Truth is a subjective series of ideals that may or may not conclude with a premise agreeing with a conclusion. The biggest difficulty I have in conversations is with people who are way too assertive and confident in their ideas because "Im an NT and NTs think the best" (I find this most commonly with ENTJs and its a problememememem because they're good at tactics and not strategy)

Oh thats interesting, suppose there are 2 groups of people. People who are aware of/study/believe in MBTI and all its proposals and then people who dont know anything about it/dismiss personality theory as immeasurable nonsense. Suppose you have a type from both these groups, how would their behavior deviate from the MBTI standard?


I think im just finding it difficult to communicate with certain NTs, do you wizards have similar experiences?

[also title, im interested to see if there is huge variance in what an intp could be.]

even if you're an interloper, feel free to participate.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:58
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#2
IDK why you think ENTJ's are not good at strategy first of all and because of this I don't think you have a firm grasp of typology.

There are two, debatably four, types that are really good at strategy when it comes to raw output without being able to memorize a formula to do so FMPOV: ENTJ's, INTJ's, and INFJ's and ENFJ's.

So let's start there.
 
Local time
Today, 07:58
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,846
Location
subjective
#3
INTP's are introverts, they are always internally organizing their thoughts. Ti types use internal logic. Te types use external logic. That is why Te types are always trying to organize the external world. INTP's are always inside their own heads, at least types with Ti are.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#4
lets start with clarifying the definition of the words, because OT is probably having a different definition in mind (Ti would consider that likely doesnt take textbook shit for granted)

Ti=tactical meaning: invent/secure many abilities (for istp=tools and skills, for intp=understandings of processes), spontaneously see what you can accomplish with those abilities/how they come together.

Te=strategical meaning: set a goal first, figure out what it takes to make it happen and go through all the steps necessary and of course learn on the way about what it takes and consider only that to be of interest.

if your idea of what tactical and strategical means is primarily influenced by perception you could easily end up with opposite ideas. Ni dominant types have a somewhat tactical element in their perception, Ne dominant types have a somewhat strategical element in their perception. it doesn't show in their moves, more in how their learning process or curiosity unfolds and its rather unconscious, because its not caused by judgements. it could only be seen through analytical third person perspective and is thus the most unlikely meaning of these two words.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#5
my understanding is very jungian and very different from superficial mbti cliches.

i think sensors are better with numbers because numbers are static, just like statistics, so when someone says typology is pseudoscience but big five is better that makes them likely a sensor (possibly INTJ, ENTJ, with Se attitude*) because big five is literally a way of sensing static aspects of reality, that is what allot of well funded science does, it nails down hard static points and edges and avoids speculations about the how, the process of things, which is always invisible and too complex to be predictable, but an intuitive will keep trying. of course such academic science is theoretic and complicated and sensors like their theories and are smart enough to remember them. academic science is practical enough to make shitloads of money, like big pharma. working for pharma implies a practical attitude. nobody needs to understand how disease and self healing works, you just need to know your pills. i also think introverts, including thinkers, are more interested in the subjective side of human condition (including creativity) than in objective systems like technology or sociology (which limit creativity and demand precise adaptation). by now i have already been blasphemous about half of mbti clichees. i could easily do the other half.

*part of jungian thinking is to take attitudes of people serious. functions are attitudes. not every attitude is your own function, because sometimes you are just parroting other people or pretending to be different because you hate yourself, but your true attitudes are always visible and reveal much about the function. its not the only way to recognize functions though.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:58
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#6
@nanook,

You seem to be tackling the basics (which is no doubt its intended purpose).

Could you talk more about the definition of what you mean by strategic and tactical? Could you also give me a rundown of what the fundamental differences are between Ne and Ni? I always thought Ni is depth before breadth and Ne vise versa, but it seems you are saying the opposite at least when it comes to processing. Which leads me to how do you think Ni doms and Ne doms differ and what is that difference when comparing them to their secondary and possible third functions?
 
Local time
Today, 07:58
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,846
Location
subjective
#7
nanook may be the classical example of an INTP. (yes this is flattery) You seem to be highly structured in your responses. But since you believe me to be Ni? (said see the difference between Si and Ni was difficult) I think that you said Introversion was structured. I should display it in my language. (I was not ENFJ under peer pressure / societal preasures, just testing it out). I can only guess what Ni structure looks like. Ne being unstructured it is all over the place, is scattered in what is perceived. Does Ni focus perceptually I guess? I do not get all my thoughts in order like Ti. Sort of bad at typology, especially Jungian typology. Still, if I am INFJ then tertiary loop for Ti but a failer still at it (typology). I am more aware of what I feel from people. I sense the emotional aura. Thus the demeanor and the core attitude. I do not put words to it. Just positive and negative. This lets me know how I must communicate.

I have strange ideas. I am sure nanook you read some of my bizarre threads sometimes. Like I said I do not put words to my feelings, just positive and negative. My ideas though do have some kind of Ni thing going on in there. Ti not being strong the spoiler is my best attempt so far at typology.

Ni (insights arise from the stillness of the psyche)
Se (sensation seeking and high resolution of reality)

Si (instinctive focuses on what is known)
Ne (finds connections and possibilities in the world)

Fi (feelings and decision are more affected by the self)
Te (Logic is used to order understanding of the external world)

Ti (Logic is used to order understanding of the internal world)
Fe (feelings and decision are more affected by others)

Here is my most recent Ni woo-woo

I am sorry if I am derailing. nanook does seem to be highly Ti
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:28
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,244
#8
i think sensors are better with numbers because numbers are static, just like statistics, so when someone says typology is pseudoscience but big five is better that makes them likely a sensor (possibly INTJ, ENTJ, with Se attitude*) because big five is literally a way of sensing static aspects of reality, that is what allot of well funded science does, it nails down hard static points and edges and avoids speculations about the how, the process of things, which is always invisible and too complex to be predictable, but an intuitive will keep trying. of course such academic science is theoretic and complicated and sensors like their theories and are smart enough to remember them. academic science is practical enough to make shitloads of money, like big pharma. working for pharma implies a practical attitude. nobody needs to understand how disease and self healing works, you just need to know your pills. i also think introverts, including thinkers, are more interested in the subjective side of human condition (including creativity) than in objective systems like technology or sociology (which limit creativity and demand precise adaptation). by now i have already been blasphemous about half of mbti clichees. i could easily do the other half.

*part of jungian thinking is to take attitudes of people serious. functions are attitudes. not every attitude is your own function, because sometimes you are just parroting other people or pretending to be different because you hate yourself, but your true attitudes are always visible and reveal much about the function. its not the only way to recognize functions though.
Really? People like big5 because it's got a number in it and it's simple and that makes them sensors?

Your thinking seems like a superficial MBTI cliche in that it takes exception to itself, and dismisses others with different priorities as sensors for extremely superficial reasons.

In what way is big5 a static aspect of reality while MBTI is not?

In my experience most of the 'hard aspect of reality' guys aren't in personality psychology. Personality is a particularly soft area in an already soft science. One of my professors dismisses all of personality research as wishful thinking (he's in the neuro area, so has a higher standard of proof).

You also act as if Big5 users are in it for money, when MBTI rakes it in.

@OP
To me the definition of INTP is roughly:
- social disengagement and disillusionment
- lack of goals/direction
- deconstructionist, abstract thought
- divergent, Beysian style thought tempered by convergent judgement to narrow down possibilities
- unmet potential (see lack of goals/direction)

I'm on the fence about MBTI. Sometimes it seems real and sometimes it seems stupid, I'm yet to go and do the research myself though. I perceive anyone who identifies with their type too strongly (such as using it to justify their unwarranted confidence in their thoughts) as naive and not worth listening to/learning from. I disagree when you say ENTJs are good at tactics but not strategy, that makes little sense to me.
 
Local time
Today, 07:58
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,846
Location
subjective
#9
I am not in favor of MBTI. Even though I have not taken the official test I would say that the nature of any persons cognition is not something that is measurable in the ways assumed by the test. Psychometrics are generally not looking at an evolving system but only constants. If Jungian typology really is about helping you see how people evolve in their types then looking for static behaviors is not the right way to understand their cognition. A sampling system looking for correlated traits such as big 5 does show a real part of personality. But Jungian typology is looking at cognition which means a function set will use cognition in such a variety of situations as to make statistical sample measurement impractical. Cognition is a way of operating in the world not behaviors in reaction to the world. MBTI is not the best way to understand how people operate in the world. Jung made observations and that is the current basis for identifying type. Like Nanook said, some types reject Jungian typology because you cannot put your finger on type as easily as MBTI purports. Typology as Jungians would practice it is not looking for static traits but observing how people differ when operating in the world. To detect what same or differents functions may be displaying the same behaviors. (Types will operate in the world with different function but have almost or exactly the same behaviors): This is why trait theory of types is the wrong theoretical framework. And not all expression a type may display is part of the samples of the tests.
 
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
2,850
Location
Objects in the mirror might look closer than they
#10
damn this thread .-.
i'm not sure if Ti tends to overcomplicate things
or if it's just boredom

u could say Te is more about the ends, Ti is the means
Ni supports Te by erasing the unlikely and giving ultra focus on the target, Ni transforms the subject into the goal's slave, it's an ascension process, almost purifying i would say... it erases yourself
Ne supports Ti by giving it more alternatives to explore, the subject keeps control over itself and his more concious to adapt in case emergency... it erases the goal.
i might be tying to Si in this one, but i can't really think anything for Ne.

i don't wanna tie any type to strategies but i would say NTJs are executers, while NTPs are advicers, STJs are advicers and STPs are executers.

there are people out there that might believe they are certain type and that means they are awesome. do smth, erase them from ur life.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,624
Location
Stockholm
#11
Someone who is
- analytical and logical
- creative and expansive in their interests
- not concerned with sensory stimulation
- sensitive to other people's emotions

So thats pretty much the way I see the manifestation of Ti, Ne, Si, Fe
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Today, 03:58
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,020
#12
I find nanook's perspecive on science interesting, considering he considers himself INTP (I think...?).

I understand there are aspects of science that are "out of touch" with reality - or not of great benefit to certain aspects of humanity. I guess it depends on the area of science you are in, and what your motivations and desired outcomes are. However, in order to be taken seriously these days, you have to be able to come up with proof. In certain areas of the political arena, this is considered important - governments need data to support decisions, or so they claim. So schemes are designed that fit with the current governments agenda, and thus, science is at the mercy of politics. That does not mean scientists are in on the game, or necessarily in agreement.

This is why I was drawn to areas of science that enable a very wide perspective. I have fallen into ecology and palaeontology/geology for that reason, as these are disciplines that incorporate all aspects of science, including chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, evolution, earth sciences and ecological principles (and the arts), even sociology and psychology. In addition, I have incorporated local and federal politics and legislation (including in-depth case studies), river morphology and hydrology, wetland ecology, fire ecology, disturbance ecology, GIS and remote sensing, to have the wide base of understanding needed for complex issues (because, ultimately all scientific issues are incredibly complex). Interestingly, universities are increasingly marginalising or shutting down their palaeontology departments - I guess the deep time perspective is not considered profitable...

Politics aside, a current obsession is potential fractal dimensions in bone disease in ancient and modern marsupials, which is only one aspect of ecology, but nonetheless a significantly important aspect that could potentially tell us something about patterns of disease in species evolution. In order to get a full picture of understanding, I have to incorporate as many potential influencing factors as possible, which is why I use ecological principles as a framework.

I think this is typically XNTP - to want to approach things in a way that incorporates as many disciplines as possible while leaving multiple options open. I'm somewhat naturally repulsed by static, one-track kind of thinking and rigid frameworks. I therefore sometimes feel constricted/limited and frustrated by certain tasks in academia.

However- I also understand that you have to include static approaches and adhere to rigid procedures in order to have data that is meaningful to the status quo (ultimately, funding comes from institutions that are less concerned with the ethical and interesting than generating money short-term, so you have to make them believe that this is what you are prioritising). The problem with academia in the modern context is funding, and the lack of funding means scientists are forced to work within somewhat static frameworks, when in fact, they would much prefer to have a long-term flexible framework that allows for the enormous variance and time-induced influences that affect data. This is incredibly frustrating for a serious and competent scientist who understands the non-stationary nature of data, and the incredibly complex ramifications of this. This is why I have chosen the paleontology approach, as there are great resources available through the museums and collections networks. I worked for inland fisheries for a while, and saw several long-term scientific projects having their plugs pulled - all that hard work and data suddenly left suspended mid-air. How are scientists supposed to predict long-term changes when their projects are dropped without warning, and all their work has been disregarded as a waste of time by decision makers?

Well, of course projects are going to be viewed as a waste of time if one cannot come up with sufficient long-term data to support hypotheses. Now the politicians have the necessary ammo to support their decision, and scientists are left with no voice, other than through the work they are trying to finish. I am therefore a little bit surprised when people view scientists with suspicion - it is not as if they are making much money or even acquiring any sort of status from their work. Very few make it to the point where they have that sort of status and money - the rest just work quietly in the background with little reward other than a passion for what they are doing.

I have been told time and time again by my supervisors/lecturers that I'm "a different kettle of fish", and that I need to narrow my focus - this is not because they don't appreciate my approach - in fact they support it fully because they can see what I am doing with it - they have to push me because this is what is required if you want to get anywhere within reach of having the academic freedom you desire. I other words, you have to jump through the hoops like a stupid circus dog until you get to the point where people take you seriously, precisely because they can see that you are able to combine those valuable skills with innovative thinking. So, in my experience, I don't find it to be true that science is full of sensing types who are only interested in numbers - there is surprising depth, complexity and drive to everyone when you get to know them better - it is just that politics stop these people from speaking up loud. Unfortunately, science is largely controlled by politics, whether we like to admit it or not - however, most serious scientists realise that in order to make changes you have to also learn to how play the game. You get nothing done by giving up, or leaving it to others.

I think Te/Ni and Ni/Te -types are somewhat less bothered by this than Ti/Ne or Ne/Ti types, which is why the former group seem to be the drivers and decision makers in academia, while the latter tag along, but come up with quite dynamic and unusual theories and ideas in the background.

To get to the OP's point. I think the way I approach things is just another way of getting to the truth of things - I have through this process gained the understanding that truth is non-static, which is why it is difficult to talk about 'truth' in a way people can relate to.

The idea of 'truth' seems to be that of something static in most people's minds (I am of course not talking about truths that are considered typically static, such as the obvious characteristic nature of objects, by which we can describe them meaningfully - I do not intend to go into the solipsistic rabbit hole even though that can be fascinating too - it is just that the ultimate end-point here is meaningless in the way that it renders every option impossible or pointless, so I deliberately steer away from this very predictable discussion). When I talk about truth, I refer to the fact that systems change over time and thus truth will therefore look slightly - or quite different (depending on the observer and their modes of measure) from time-node to time-node, depending on the length of the time slot. The longer we measure through time, the more our data will change, and thus, 'truth' will look different as we add more data to our pool.

However, you will get to a point where the mathematical representation will be predictable, and this is where it becomes interesting - I think this is the point where you could potentially talk with more certainty about the 'truth' of things, and which is why science is appealing to me - the patterns can be predicted for most things, it is just a matter of collecting enough data and making sure your methods are up for scrutiny at every point.

The only issue I have with the mathematical representation of large datasets is of course the inevitable obscuring of discrete data - which is why it is very important to work with statisticians who actually know what they are doing and who are not afraid to have their methods checked. Interestingly, fractals appear to explain a lot of these discrete variations, which is why I'm currently exploring this aspect.

Edit: tl/dr

Based on the above discussion, a typical INTP would be someone who is concerned with truth as it changes within different frameworks and dimensions. This person would use logical and theoretical principles as means of exploration (using Ne and Si to extract and store real-life data, and Ti to check theories and ideas for missing links/discrepancies and inconsistencies), and prefer an 'objective' stance as much as this is possible (dismissing pointless solipsistic discussion as they would have already explored this rabbit hole). They would be less concerned with personal matters, and prefer a detached birds-eye approach, using detailed compartmentalisation as supporting method.
 

PmjPmj

Full of stars.
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
1,394
Location
UK
#13
Argh, you have to be kidding me. I just wrote up a fairly lengthy post, went to submit and my connection was interrupted because my proxy obviously dropped. Now I have to start again - with far less time. So, this will be brief.

My closest friend has been typed professionally as INTP. Prior to said typing, I had assumed he was an xSTP, because he does not come even remotely close to the 'nerd' stereotype. Certainly, he has interests in (and much knowledge of) tech and its various applications... but this is a guy who rides superbikes at death-defying speeds, used to be heavily in to bodybuilding / Muay Thai / Jujitsu - and he's had more women than I've had hot dinners. So, yeah. From the outside looking in, you could be forgiven for assuming that he's some kind of kick-ass Se type.

But no. He's TiNe through and through. Here's how I see him:

- Intelligent, although he tends to keep this side of himself somewhat private. Less so now he's in his 30s, as his job requires him to be visibly competent

- Fair and level-headed. One of the few people I can have an actual conversation with

- Somewhat disconnected emotionally, but nowhere near the extent I've observed within the TJ types

- He is very stereotypically TiNe in that he'll become obsessed with something, research it fully and master it to the best of his ability... only to drop it at a moment's notice and move on to something else entirely, seldom if ever looking back

- When the situation calls for it, he exercises an undeniable 'cheeky' charm and can be downright charismatic at times

but...

- He's also far more liable than anyone else I know to speak his mind / flip out at someone who pisses him off; he has no issues with being physically threatening

For the sake of contrast, I think the biggest differences between us are:

- Within areas of relative interest, he likes knowledge for the sake of knowledge. He goes deep; on the other hand, I want the TL;DR version of everything. This sometimes grates on the both of us, though we accept that we're just wired differently.

- I am very 'J' whereas he is very 'P'. Trying to get things nailed down can sometimes be a bit hit and miss. I've found that I have to ambush him at the last second with plans, lest he feel boxed in / tied down. I have to go out of my way to create the illusion of a certain fluidity - even though I've known that these plans would come to fruition for weeks.

@OP: I can't speak for all ENTJs (obviously) but I'm married to one and I may be one myself.

I assure you - neither myself nor my wife have the kind of ego you allude to. To be fair, it is often assumed that we are arrogant and self-confident, but that's just how we come across whether we like it or not. Something about our brain-wiring means that we appear a certain way to onlookers. Take time to speak with us however and you'll quickly discover that we're just as insecure as many other people out there, and most probably far harder on ourselves than we are on anyone else. We have high standards, sure - but they are most often directed at ourselves.
 

PmjPmj

Full of stars.
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
1,394
Location
UK
#14
I think Te/Ni and Ni/Te -types are somewhat less bothered by this than Ti/Ne or Ne/Ti types, which is why the former group seem to be the drivers and decision makers in academia, while the latter tag along, but come up with quite dynamic and unusual theories and ideas in the background.
In general you are probably correct in your assumption. My ENTJ wife is very academically gifted, and has no issues jumping through many ridiculous hoops to get where she's going. The end justifies the means, and all that.

I also know an INTJ who has her PhD.

Both openly admit that they were often infuriated by the process (and those directing it) but ultimately they knew what they wanted and cast aside their prejudices to get it.

I on the other hand have had trouble with this. Historically, I have demonstrated great petulance in the face of incompetent tutors, or seemingly illogical practices. I've had plenty of opportunities to get myself a great education, but I've fucked all of them up. Obviously I didn't want them badly enough, heh.

I'd like to think I'm somewhat more mature now and I will earn a degree one day, but what in I do not know. Maybe business and law, or some shit. Something that'll allow me to wear a fancy suit, point out how shit x,y and z is, then earn ££££££.

Edit to add that a PhD psychologist I once studied under pulled me to one side after a lecture and implored me to get checked for ADD. She suffered with it herself and saw very clear signs in me.

Me being me, I laughed at her accusations and rationalised it away.

Meanwhile, I'm very likely balls-deep in ADD. I think this is why I've historically been rather poor at getting my shit together.
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Today, 03:58
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,020
#15
^ I agree with you that wanting it enough is probably one of the most important factors. However, it would be incredibly difficult with ADD - and even I find the more mundane aspects of learning incredibly hard (I suspect I may have similar issues, which is why it has taken me a long time to get anywhere).

I'm actually seriously considering medication, but I would have to get a diagnosis first...yeah, another bloody diagnosis...
 

PmjPmj

Full of stars.
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
1,394
Location
UK
#16
Oh?

I was once diagnosed with "severe depression". That was fun.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#17
not much makes me feel as exhausted as being misunderstood, hado. i project how every further clarification will likely create two new misunderstandings, given how your cognitive style is just about the opposite of mine.

and that exhaustion makes me too tired to address all of polaris' thoughts:

all i can say is: the dominant attitude voiced in your post is that of extroversion, apparently extroversion of intuition. combined with some down right anti-introverted attitude in something that reeks of strawman argument (solipsism?). similarly you were also voicing an extroverted attitude in a previous post, something about disliking weakness or similar, it appeared to be extroverted feeling. entp are certainly good scientists and i am glad you found your way into the right profession. your field of science is probably very different from pharma related science, such as nutrition and psychiatry.

about these misunderstandings

well i wasn't saying ALL science is sensation but that science is not only frequently dominated by an attitude of sensation but also highly appreciated and demanded in that form, because it is practical. that is to say, i am not trying to turn accepted dichotomies all around, i try to be iconoclastic about their reality. away with them. good science clearly depends on a perfect cooperation of sensation and intuition but bad funded science (such as nutrition) is more often bad because intuition is actively suppressed for manipulative reasons. bad science that is bad because of suppressed sensation is most likely not funded at all.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#18
oh before i forget there is a response to QT in my notes ... can't remember what i wrote there .. probably an incomplete response full of imperfect wording that will no doubt create further misunderstanding from anyone who takes my shit too literally and is simply oblivious of those abstract patterns that i hope to highlight with examples:


introversion has a span that encompasses the intrinsic abilities of the subject which are many. many ways of thinking for Ti (hence many schools of thought), many ways of dancing for Ni (hence many sophisticated paths from martial art over flirting to spirituality), many ways of transmuting feelings, many ways of acquiring a taste of structures or qualities for Si.

extroversion has a span that encompasses the external situations that were experienced. its going to be a narrow span for the person who never leaves the house (Ti doms). but its as wide as experience and as long as i see all types of people in movies i will feel the extroverted urge to relate to all types of people. how i relate? through Ne an estimation of likely interactions tells me who is more or less powerfull, through extroverted inferior feeling i decide if its worth a firght or if i should flee.

the word depth is tricky and i dont want to associate it with typolgy at all. its probably better used for developmental psychology, for stages.


why does thomas from podlair know something about wma fighting and why does teal swan know how to ski-jump? there is a huge perceptive span involved here. its processes of approaching tasks and they mesh them together and reuse them for different purposes, they understand how their motivational energy flows and how long it lasts and what it depends on so they can figure out how to become madly driven about accomplishing "anything", which involves a ton of micro skills, tasks, processes, unconventional processes that can not be learned from books like manipulating people, hitching a ride, knowing how to lapdance for no other purpose, span all over the place. versatile. the different with ne dominance is the focus on the subjective factor. Ni is all bout sculpting intention and from that it follows that it is about ability. Si is more like posture, habits, familiarity with territory, Ni is familiarity with events, how to flirt, how to speak in tongues, inner game. Ne is about understanding different aspects of reality. how types work. how computers work. how cars work. how the body works. there is always knowledge of structures, organic of mechanical, being build up which is Si, but the Ne type is speculative about Si because he is inspired by Ne observations (that Si dominant types are mostly missing) - Ne sees invisible machines behind everything. regarding manipulation of people it opens another door but perhaps theoretical, because the Ne type is not as good of an actor, apart from play auxiliary Ti lies. not a skinwalker. Ni learns how to do it consistently, Ne learns how it might be possible.
 
Local time
Today, 07:58
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
93
Location
(this universe)
#19
Wouldn't it be easier to act like you're not depressed? How can they even tell you're "severely depressed" if you don't interact with people in the first place?

And when the therapist comes, you could just pester them with questions about their methods of psychological analysis instead of answering their questions and doing all sorts of tests. I haven't come in contact with one myself though...
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:58
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#20
oh before i forget there is a response to QT in my notes ... can't remember what i wrote there .. probably an incomplete response full of imperfect wording that will no doubt create further misunderstanding from anyone who takes my shit too literally and is simply oblivious of those abstract patterns that i hope to highlight with examples:


introversion has a span that encompasses the intrinsic abilities of the subject which are many. many ways of thinking for Ti (hence many schools of thought), many ways of dancing for Ni (hence many sophisticated paths from martial art over flirting to spirituality), many ways of transmuting feelings, many ways of acquiring a taste of structures or qualities for Si.

extroversion has a span that encompasses the external situations that were experienced. its going to be a narrow span for the person who never leaves the house (Ti doms). but its as wide as experience and as long as i see all types of people in movies i will feel the extroverted urge to relate to all types of people. how i relate? through Ne an estimation of likely interactions tells me who is more or less powerfull, through extroverted inferior feeling i decide if its worth a firght or if i should flee.

the word depth is tricky and i dont want to associate it with typolgy at all. its probably better used for developmental psychology, for stages.


why does thomas from podlair know something about wma fighting and why does teal swan know how to ski-jump? there is a huge perceptive span involved here. its processes of approaching tasks and they mesh them together and reuse them for different purposes, they understand how their motivational energy flows and how long it lasts and what it depends on so they can figure out how to become madly driven about accomplishing "anything", which involves a ton of micro skills, tasks, processes, unconventional processes that can not be learned from books like manipulating people, hitching a ride, knowing how to lapdance for no other purpose, span all over the place. versatile. the different with ne dominance is the focus on the subjective factor. Ni is all bout sculpting intention and from that it follows that it is about ability. Si is more like posture, habits, familiarity with territory, Ni is familiarity with events, how to flirt, how to speak in tongues, inner game. Ne is about understanding different aspects of reality. how types work. how computers work. how cars work. how the body works. there is always knowledge of structures, organic of mechanical, being build up which is Si, but the Ne type is speculative about Si because he is inspired by Ne observations (that Si dominant types are mostly missing) - Ne sees invisible machines behind everything. regarding manipulation of people it opens another door but perhaps theoretical, because the Ne type is not as good of an actor, apart from play auxiliary Ti lies. not a skinwalker. Ni learns how to do it consistently, Ne learns how it might be possible.
No, that is more or less what I thought you were going to say.

If I am interpreting this right (and correct me if I am wrong), you are saying Ne is more strategic because it encompasses more information to deal with effects while Ni is focussed on the particulars of specifics and how to manipulate those ends to meet a goal. Is that about right?
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:28
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,244
#21
not much makes me feel as exhausted as being misunderstood, hado. i project how every further clarification will likely create two new misunderstandings, given how your cognitive style is just about the opposite of mine.

and that exhaustion makes me too tired to address all of polaris' thoughts:

all i can say is: the dominant attitude voiced in your post is that of extroversion, apparently extroversion of intuition. combined with some down right anti-introverted attitude in something that reeks of strawman argument (solipsism?). similarly you were also voicing an extroverted attitude in a previous post, something about disliking weakness or similar, it appeared to be extroverted feeling. entp are certainly good scientists and i am glad you found your way into the right profession. your field of science is probably very different from pharma related science, such as nutrition and psychiatry.

about these misunderstandings

well i wasn't saying ALL science is sensation but that science is not only frequently dominated by an attitude of sensation but also highly appreciated and demanded in that form, because it is practical. that is to say, i am not trying to turn accepted dichotomies all around, i try to be iconoclastic about their reality. away with them. good science clearly depends on a perfect cooperation of sensation and intuition but bad funded science (such as nutrition) is more often bad because intuition is actively suppressed for manipulative reasons. bad science that is bad because of suppressed sensation is most likely not funded at all.
Sorry dude. I understand the frustration and exhaustion (I hate being misunderstood myself). I think you do yourself a disservice in the language you use if this is an ongoing thing. I would like to explore our differences, but not if it's annoying for you. For the record, I only identify as ENTP ironically, because I think they get away with too much just by talking fast and in many different directions. I don't really have a type I'm attached to.

I would prefer you ignore my existence and pursue your conversation with Polly. The last thing I want to do is discourage your activity.
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Today, 03:58
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,020
#22
It seems I have upset you with my post, nanook - not entirely sure why though. Perhaps it was my initial comment. The entirety of my post was not addressed to you, however. It was an expression of frustration from someone who is also a bit tired of generalising comments about science, and being misunderstood.

Perhaps I need to clarify a few things, my apologies if the following was not clear in my previous post, and for any more misunderstandings I may commit with my following post.

My first comment about your view on science just reflects my curiosity as to why someone would dismiss (that is how I interpret your comments,- forgive me if I'm wrong) certain people for having a 'sensing' approach:

...because big five is literally a way of sensing static aspects of reality, that is what allot of well funded science does, it nails down hard static points and edges and avoids speculations about the how, the process of things, which is always invisible and too complex to be predictable, but an intuitive will keep trying. of course such academic science is theoretic and complicated and sensors like their theories and are smart enough to remember them. academic science is practical enough to make shitloads of money, like big pharma. working for pharma implies a practical attitude. nobody needs to understand how disease and self healing works, you just need to know your pills. i also think introverts, including thinkers, are more interested in the subjective side of human condition (including creativity) than in objective systems like technology or sociology (which limit creativity and demand precise adaptation). by now i have already been blasphemous about half of mbti clichees...
What I have highlighted in bold kind of begs for a response - these are pretty strong generalisations. I understand that generalisations sometimes are necessary to describe a trend, but I cannot sit here and accept every one of them because it is necessary to provide a nuanced view - for the sake of people who may be reading this, not for the sake of argument - I am not interested in arguing with one person, I am interested in providing a different facet (or several) to an argument.
As I outlined in my excessively long post above (should have shortened it for clarity), I prefer a multi-faceted approach.

Yes, science nails down hard, static points for the sake of clarity - this is what is required if you do not wish to be misunderstood in the scientific community. However, the hard, static points are generally but a fragment of the enormity of science that is actually behind it. Most people do not get to reading the full studies or articles because they are sadly often not available, and the community is left with the very generalising interpretations of people who may not necessarily take their time to understand the entirety of the science behind such articles. Often, people will just read the abstracts, and these can generally not include disclaimers, limitations or speculations for the sake of word limits. It is required that you present your data in a brief, succinct and precise manner, or you may not get your message through. Your work will be dismissed.

So the science that is communicated in the media is for a large part, greatly simplified and distorted, misinterpreted and cherry-picked, depending on the agenda of those interpreting it. But you probably already know this - I am here writing for the sake of providing a perspective from the inside to those who would be interested.

What is not communicated or understood is that most serious scientists are very cautious about making bold statements - precisely because they do not wish to be misunderstood or misquoted. However, even then they are at the mercy of those who put the final product into print - and what is their agenda? To attract interest and generate profits as a result. Because, ultimately, in every medium, the bottom line is money. Nobody actually gives a shit about what the science is actually about, because people find non-opinionated statements uninteresting - it's not dramatic enough.

Example: scientists propose a theory about a dinosaur stampede caused by massive carnivorous giants pursuing smaller ones. The media get a whiff of it and smell sensation because dinosaurs have mass-appeal, just like whales, koalas and cute dolphins.

Result: article attracts a great deal of attention because DINOSAUR MASS STAMPEDE WOW, SUCH DRAMA. It even inspired a scene in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park.

Some people from the Smithsonian society in the US expressed doubt - the larger prints appeared to be from those of a giant herbivore, but this was ignored for the most part. A few years later come modern technology and some Aussie wizard tech dude plays around with 3D remodelling of the clay imprints from the stampede site, and discovers a great deal of other interesting data that points towards the possibility that this was probably not a carnivore-induced mass-stampede, but potentially a migration event. The footprints indicate that the all the smaller dinosaurs were not, in fact just running, but walking, and even swimming. Additionally, the smaller dinosaurs probably made their way across the mudflat some time after the larger ones made their imprints. The smaller ones were walking through tall bushes and reeds, so there was no way they could be running without great difficulty.

DING - intuition could be wrong.

The interesting thing is that nobody from the media were interested in this story. It wasn't interesting anymore, because it wasn't dramatic enough.

The only people to draw attention to the fact that the scientists who initially made intuitive guesses about the nature of the event could be wrong, were, in fact, scientists.

Who's the sensation seekers? The media, not the scientists. This is why science comes across as sensing dominated because the media are not interested in vague intuitive leaps or speculations - they want hard, static edges, and this is why most science is interpreted as such.

Also, how can one intuit anything without acquiring sensory data first...? The more sensory data you acquire, the more your intuition has a basis for making connections.

Also, a comment about how disease works, self healing, etc.

Most medications are prescribed by GPs. Many of these people are overworked and unhealthy themselves, as a result of being forced to see an excessive amount of patients every day. They don't even have time to explore underlying reasons and vital aspects of medical history is often largely neglected or missed because the practitioner doesn't have time to ask, and the patient is often not educated enough to provide relevant information that the practitioner may have no way of inferring.

Problem two. 'Big pharma' does push GPs and medical practitioners into pushing their products, not because of scientists, but the people who profit from pharmacological research - company and institutional owners, politicians, etc. Big money is poured into this kind of research, and other, more investigative fields of science are ignored - this forces people who want to have a career in science to pick disciplines that guarantee them an income. Many of them are even pushed into their career paths by parents, etc - something that is becoming more and more apparent here where I live.

Can we really blame them?

My point about solipsism: not directed at nanook. Just something I see a lot on these boards. My point is that it is often assumed that people who work in science do not consider these aspects of philosophy. They do. If anyone is aware of subjective bias, it is scientists. Which is precisely why the scientific methods strives towards objectivity through rigorous methods, self-checking and peer-review. I don't know of any other discipline that scrutinises itself with such vigour. It is not faultless, of course. Nobody is without fault. But it tries, at least.

As for you point about intuitives/intuitive thinkers being more interested in subjective side of humanity (including creativity) than the technical and sociological (limiting creativity...?) - I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I guess it depends what you consider to be creative.

I'm worried I've made another giant, unreadable post so I will finish here for now.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:58
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#23
Just want to point out what Jung's thoughts on science are/is.

Jung seemed to believe that the sciences are born from intuition. One must have a hunch before one has a hypothesis before one does and experiment before one has a theory. Good science, at least.

Just don't want anyone getting the idea that science is strictly a sensors domain.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today, 04:58
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#24
A weak spineless creature that lives off the excrement of greater beings, forever foraging through the safety of their own minds, and living a reality cemented in isolation and toxic shame.
 

Green

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Jul 5, 2017
Messages
18
#25
IDK why you think ENTJ's are not good at strategy first of all and because of this I don't think you have a firm grasp of typology.

There are two, debatably four, types that are really good at strategy when it comes to raw output without being able to memorize a formula to do so FMPOV: ENTJ's, INTJ's, and INFJ's and ENFJ's.

So let's start there.
You insult my honor by suggesting i dont know all the things. now we duel to the death. :storks:

Could you elaborate a little on your distinction between tactics and strategy? I was using a context from chess.

im confused about memorizing formula. could you talk about why you believe thats relevant to strategy?

Ti=tactical meaning: invent/secure many abilities (for istp=tools and skills, for intp=understandings of processes), spontaneously see what you can accomplish with those abilities/how they come together.

Te=strategical meaning: set a goal first, figure out what it takes to make it happen and go through all the steps necessary and of course learn on the way about what it takes and consider only that to be of interest.
interesting, i like where you went with this. i think Ti is great at categories and informational properties. I think your Te definition is more J/p distinction. Tactics meaning good at bulldozing a problem right infront of you.


*part of jungian thinking is to take attitudes of people serious. functions are attitudes. not every attitude is your own function, because sometimes you are just parroting other people or pretending to be different because you hate yourself, but your true attitudes are always visible and reveal much about the function. its not the only way to recognize functions though.
whoaaaaaaa A++++
A weak spineless creature that lives off the excrement of greater beings, forever foraging through the safety of their own minds, and living a reality cemented in isolation and toxic shame.
is everything okay with you?

I'm on the fence about MBTI. Sometimes it seems real and sometimes it seems stupid, I'm yet to go and do the research myself though. I perceive anyone who identifies with their type too strongly (such as using it to justify their unwarranted confidence in their thoughts) as naive and not worth listening to/learning from. I disagree when you say ENTJs are good at tactics but not strategy, that makes little sense to me.
I agree with the living the stereotype construction being a false idol. I cant really help clarify what I mean if you dont tell me what about it is confusing to you.


i'm not sure if Ti tends to overcomplicate things
or if it's just boredom
cool I can relate to thinking about this too. ive thought of it as restlessness and also believe now that simulators have a high degree of imprecision.


@animekitty "organize the external world" ?


I am not in favor of MBTI. Even though I have not taken the official test I would say that the nature of any persons cognition is not something that is measurable in the ways assumed by the test. Psychometrics are generally not looking at an evolving system but only constants. If Jungian typology really is about helping you see how people evolve in their types then looking for static behaviors is not the right way to understand their cognition. A sampling system looking for correlated traits such as big 5 does show a real part of personality. But Jungian typology is looking at cognition which means a function set will use cognition in such a variety of situations as to make statistical sample measurement impractical. Cognition is a way of operating in the world not behaviors in reaction to the world. MBTI is not the best way to understand how people operate in the world. Jung made observations and that is the current basis for identifying type. Like Nanook said, some types reject Jungian typology because you cannot put your finger on type as easily as MBTI purports. Typology as Jungians would practice it is not looking for static traits but observing how people differ when operating in the world. To detect what same or differents functions may be displaying the same behaviors. (Types will operate in the world with different function but have almost or exactly the same behaviors): This is why trait theory of types is the wrong theoretical framework. And not all expression a type may display is part of the samples of the tests.
dario nardi did some cool experiments with brainscans. areas would light up in response to specific stimuli. probs not conclusive but a fascinating jumping point. also i think behavioral patterns tend to spring up pretty commonly in categories. thats why stereotypes do exist to some degree, but not necessarily apply to every individual.




(@polaris, full disclosure i skimmed both of your posts)


Based on the above discussion, a typical INTP would be someone who is concerned with truth as it changes within different frameworks and dimensions. This person would use logical and theoretical principles as means of exploration (using Ne and Si to extract and store real-life data, and Ti to check theories and ideas for missing links/discrepancies and inconsistencies), and prefer an 'objective' stance as much as this is possible (dismissing pointless solipsistic discussion as they would have already explored this rabbit hole). They would be less concerned with personal matters, and prefer a detached birds-eye approach, using detailed compartmentalisation as supporting method.
maybe, tough subject to deduce with any reliable degree of precision because its dangerously close to fulfilling the "im the tortured genius" cliche that I see so many NTs delusionally sink into. lots of INTPs ive read about on the internet cant seem to get their life together and id categorize that as personal (cant stop themselves from browsing reddit all day or something similar)

though I do like the idea that by going to school and practicing the scientific method, one can learn to Ti/Te over time.

As for you point about intuitives/intuitive thinkers being more interested in subjective side of humanity (including creativity) than the technical and sociological (limiting creativity...?) - I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I guess it depends what you consider to be creative.
yah im entirely confused by the limited creativity thing too. traditional science takes a lot of creativity.



to add that a PhD psychologist I once studied under pulled me to one side after a lecture and implored me to get checked for ADD. She suffered with it herself and saw very clear signs in me.

Me being me, I laughed at her accusations and rationalised it away.

Meanwhile, I'm very likely balls-deep in ADD. I think this is why I've historically been rather poor at getting my shit together.
i too am curious if i have this and i am very skilled at putting the doctor off.




330AM, brain starting to cry. thanks everyone for posting your thoughts, this place is great!
 
Local time
Today, 07:58
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,846
Location
subjective
#26
My new definition of an INTP.

Ti (Logic is used to order understanding of the internal subjective world)
Ne (patterns are seen everywhere as everything in the world is connected)
Si (everything detected is part of the subject, the world is the subject)
Fe (negative and positive affect in others effect decisions)

Rational = reasoning
Irrational = not reasoning

Judgment - deciding
Perceptions - recognizing

Introversion - the subject
Extraversion - the object

N - patterns
S - what is
F - affect
T - logic

Ni (patterns are detected that come from inside the individual)
Se (high-resolution clarity of everything separate from the subject)

Si (everything detected is part of the subject, the world is the subject)
Ne (patterns are seen everywhere as everything in the world is connected)

Fi (negative and positive affect in the subject effect decisions)
Te (Logic is used to order understanding of the external objective world)

Ti (Logic is used to order understanding of the internal world)
Fe (negative and positive affect in others effect decisions)
 

Rixus

I introverted think. Therefore, I am.
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
1,276
Location
United Kingdon
#27
A disillusioned alien who learns to walk amongst the humans of decayed society, but never fully becomes one of them. A genius with the ability to move the heavens, yet barely the drive to move themselves. Able to solve the mystery of life, the universe and everything yet can barely hold a conversation without a struggle.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#28
surprise, i found my way back into this thread.

now for the tricky part. talking about typology to someone who prefers to talk about science. i give you that: this preference may be the indicator of strong orientation towards your subject, meaning introversion.

polaris, i would not be surprised if you were traumatized by how science is misportraied in this era of postmodern culture enabling trumpist climate denial for just kicks and giggels and if you were easily triggered by insignificant side-remarks on science.

your need to explain science seems mainly unrelated to the points i was making about typology.

i wasn't trying to say something about science at all, much less anything along the lines of all scientists being sensors. only that sensors are into science. allot.

you bring the media into it and you think of them as sensing oriented, i don't disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that someone who is plainly sensotarded (like bart simpson) couldn't even begin to study science, because it is so overwhelmingly filled with sensation stuff that intuitives must sort of handle with their weaker hand, meaning they must be smarter overall to get the same grades that sensors get, at the entry level. in fact this starts with schools. it starts with reading the newspaper. it is all the same culture. we live in an intellectual world, but it can't be said to be the world of intuitives.

i used science as one example of many for how sensors are necessarily involved into theoretical academic stuff, because theoretical academic stuff involves plenty of sensing.

i bring this up, because mbti will cause all individuals who are smart enough for academics or any theoretical stuff to mistype as intuitives and perhaps go as far as to mistype stupid living in the moment intuitives (like myself) as sensors.

and since green asked about "huge variance in what intp could be"

for example i feel that lisa simpson is an isfj, if not esfj, but she is always considered infj, just because she is smart and moderately idealistic in a conformist way. and wouldn't mbti people not type bart simpson as istp just because he has a skateboard like me? but i imagine that bart simpson is quite like my childhood self in many ways and millhouse is more like my tree bark peeling bugs examining childhood friend, the istp, who became a cynical cook, not a chemist, but close.


i will quote myself so this important point isn't overlooked:

good science clearly depends on a perfect cooperation of sensation and intuition but bad funded science (such as nutrition) is more often bad because intuition is actively suppressed for manipulative reasons. bad science that is bad because of suppressed sensation is most likely not funded at all.
just because i interpret your attitudes according to my best comprehension of typology, as being pro this, anti that doesn't mean i am upset!

and i don't even hate all entp. certainly not you. i don't even know you but i am dedicated to liking you. (unfortunately this doesn't make my communication style more charming)

i am also happy to be proven wrong about typology. i NEED to figure out the truth one of these days. until then i must go with my best comprehension, for testing purposes. this is science.

As for you point about intuitives/intuitive thinkers being more interested in subjective side of humanity (including creativity) than the technical and sociological (limiting creativity...?) - I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
but i think they are.

back to my interpretation of jungian thought. jung says of himself that he has difficulty perceiving reality. this is his argument for being an introvert. and had he perceived reality more, that would have limited his visionary creativity and he had not been carl jung at all. we just cant be introverted AND extroverted in equal measure.

or at least i see mainly individuals who are either the one or the other. and if someone is excellent at perceiving objective realities, way above average excellent, enough to make money from it in academia, then i need to see much proof of introversion to consider that they might be introverts anyway.

mbti is wildly removed from carl jung in pretending that i/e*version is about some sort of energy drain or gain in the context of socializing. that is such an unreliable way of looking at things. true, a party is objective reality and introverts have difficulty perceiving what is going on. if they try hard, it will be exhausting, if they don't make an effort, it will be cool.

but that does not mean that one extrovert individual doesn't simply hate everything about that local party scene and will go home asap, thereby demonstrating their swift control over objective reality, while the introvert hangs out until 6am, waiting for a chance to come out of his shell, that never comes, which would have been predictable to him, had he even perceived the intricacies of the whole event, but he can't even understand the voices, it all sounds like the ocean.


@quicktwist

If I am interpreting this right (and correct me if I am wrong), you are saying Ne is more strategic because it encompasses more information to deal with effects while Ni is focused on the particulars of specifics and how to manipulate those ends to meet a goal. Is that about right?
i honestly don't even know because i never tried before to comprehend the analogy of perception and judgement, as far as something akin to strategy or tactics is concerned. i haven't even fully crystallized these thoughts myself. ask me again, if any other questions are open.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:58
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#29
You insult my honor by suggesting i dont know all the things. now we duel to the death. :storks:

Could you elaborate a little on your distinction between tactics and strategy? I was using a context from chess.

im confused about memorizing formula. could you talk about why you believe thats relevant to strategy?
As per my definitions:

Strategic: Strategic planning emphasizes making goals analyzing the future. In Strategic planning, goals remain the same and methods change.

Tactical: Tactical planning emphasizes making goals analyzing the present. In Tactical planning, methods remain the same and goals change.

My new definition of an INTP.

Ti (Logic is used to order understanding of the internal subjective world)
Ne (patterns are seen everywhere as everything in the world is connected)
Si (everything detected is part of the subject, the world is the subject)
Fe (negative and positive affect in others effect decisions)

Rational = reasoning
Irrational = not reasoning

Judgment - deciding
Perceptions - recognizing

Introversion - the subject
Extraversion - the object

N - patterns
S - what is
F - affect
T - logic

Ni (patterns are detected that come from inside the individual)
Se (high-resolution clarity of everything separate from the subject)

Si (everything detected is part of the subject, the world is the subject)
Ne (patterns are seen everywhere as everything in the world is connected)

Fi (negative and positive affect in the subject effect decisions)
Te (Logic is used to order understanding of the external objective world)

Ti (Logic is used to order understanding of the internal world)
Fe (negative and positive affect in others effect decisions)
Seems pretty solid to me, at least.

@quicktwist

i honestly don't even know because i never tried before to comprehend the analogy of perception and judgement, as far as something akin to strategy or tactics is concerned. i haven't even fully crystallized these thoughts myself. ask me again, if any other questions are open.
I will give my interpretation of how I see perception and judgement as it pertains to strategic vs tactical.

In my mind, in a Ti dominant individual, there is so much going on in the brain because the Ti is most predominantly making judgements constantly. The auxiliary function is able to "flood" the brain of the Ti dom in a way that the Ti dom can't possibly articulate it all.

In a Ni dom, it experiences unbridled exploration of depth in the singular focus of a particular judgement. The auxiliary is giving direction by saying "yes, go with this" or "no, we don't need that". The Ni dom brain uses judgement to steer as opposed to finalize.

Does that make sense?
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
1,933
Location
germany
#30
about those functions that we have not much of a grasp on:

Fe is not primarily about other people, its about motivations being relative to whatever is being interacted with. the act of climbing a tall mountain is both challenging (thus attractive) and dangerous (thus repelling). this feeling is determined by the so called object, which is the act of doing, participating, etc.

Fi is presumably primarily about maintaining an inner order of feelings, an order that has criteria that are rather removed from demands of fleeting situations. its mainly concerned with the most general feelings about life. but any action or experience is also rated based on how it will affect the inner order. you can only cope with limited amounts of negativity therefore "fat better ought to be the new beautiful". this subjective acceptance (Fi) of what would be a nuisance in the eyes of Fe, is intentionally removed from the object, it only serves the subject. valuable enough, i must admit, since it allows you to overcome shame and enjoy the presence of other fat people. the more you take the Fe perspective of "fat makes lazy, exhausted, sick and demented, the object dictates that fat is a bad thing" the more likely you are to ruin the first date with a fat person by offering insights about physiology.

i assume that everyone can really dive deep into both of these perspectives, given time and incentive to do so. having one opinion or the other about these two subjects (rocky mountains and fat mountains) does not determine your type. what matters is sum of all of your judgements. how often are they intro or extroverted.

discussing how and why we relate to how other people are judging us/feeling about us (everyone is greatly bothered by being shamed), depending on whether we prefer Fi or Fe attitudes, would be so much more complicated ...
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 08:58
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,892
Location
...
#32
Local time
Today, 15:58
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Messages
492
#33
INTP - a temporary framework for my fragile identity. Shield against dissociation.
 
Local time
Today, 07:58
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,846
Location
subjective
#34
Introversion - the subject
Extraversion - the object

N - insight
S - stimuli
F - value
T - logic

INTP

Ti subjective logic
Ne objective insight
Si subjective stimuli
Fe objective value
 

Rixus

I introverted think. Therefore, I am.
Local time
Today, 14:58
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
1,276
Location
United Kingdon
#35
In Jungian classification, this is how I see it. It may not be strictly by the book and I may be completely wrong, but my understanding is based on how my brain works and similarities I've observed in others, and contradictions in how other people's brain's seem to work:

Ti - Primary function. INTP spends an inordinate amount of time in their own heads thinking, far more so and far deeper than most others. Thought is procedural and logic driven, and overthinking things is our true super power. There is no problem that we cannot solve eventually by overthinking it. Frequently runs thought experiments to solve these problems and better understand the world and possible outcomes of actions. The downside is that this excessive thought often leads us to put things off because they sometimes only happen in our heads and we don't like acting before we've thought through all possible outcomes. If still stuck deep in thought, would consequently make us appear to be oblivious and possibly lead to being thought of as unintelligent.

Ne - The ability to see the big picture around us. Small details in the world are of little significance as they exist only as parts of the whole picture. We see through illusions and see the patterns in things around us, seeming to calculate things rapidly by making quick instinctual estimations. As our primary extroverted feature, this is the first thing people often see and our ability to rapidly understand and summarise large amounts of information understand simple patterns in complex concepts is why we appear to be so intelligent, especially when these have already been analysed in Ti. When in tune with the outside world, can appear to have quick reflexes in my experience.

Si - As tertiary ability, we have a strong minds eye and memory for details even if we didn't consciously take those details in. However, dwelling upon memories and rote learning huge amounts of information is highly laborious and draining.

Fe - Inferior. Appear to have very little emotion, and what is apparent is affected primarily by other peoples emotions. As an inferior function, we are in less control of it and less understanding of it. Despite being emphatic and sensitive to other peoples emotions, has trouble understanding them. May be compelled to offer sympathetic support, but severely suck at it and find it draining. Finds social situations far more laborious than most types appear to. When in emotional arguments, becomes compelled to return emotional harmony as quickly as possible as emotional volatility is very uncomfortable and undesirable to us.
 
Top Bottom