• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

INTP vs. INTJ

^The INTJs I know seem intolerant of uncertainty and definitely want to have one single interpretation or theory to be the right one and the others to be cast off as dross.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm certainly guilty sometimes of latching on to a certain theory because I feel it "gets the job done" but I have no love for any specific theory or interpretation of anything. In fact I'm usually the "Devil's Advocate", much to the annoyance of my INTP friend ebola :)
 
mmm...
I think it might be fair to say that the paradigmatic INTP will attempt to reach certainty in the realm of ideas before acting. If the INTP is honest with him or herself, this will allow for consideration of multiple conceptual maps prior to true attachment to one set of ideas. If the INTP is dishonest with him or herself, this will entail dogmatic utopianism.

The INTJ, on the other hand, will intuit what seems to be right, and then certainty will be reached in implementation. "Does it work?"

If the two are to meet half-way, the INTP will have to lead herself to give two shits about implementation, and the INTJ will have to slow down a bit and check that she has an idea of what she is doing.

ebola
 
Well, its quite nice actually. Being able to express your opinions openly to others without feeling an overwhelming feeling of awkwardness ( like it was back when that E was an I ) is priceless
Click to expand...

Like Rated E was saying, being introverted is not the same as being socially awkward, though they can often co-exist. I would think this is because for Introverts, social interaction does not have such a strong pull or feel so vital, so less time is spent learning how to work a crowd or becoming 'popular'. I think these things are just less important for introverts. TacticalBongRip - I would hazard a guess that you were always an ENTP - just one hiding behind some social anxiety.

I'm an INFP who has occasionally tested as ENFP. While I'm comfortable in crowds, love large parties etc - which may bring my extraverted score up - my thinking style is definitely that of an introvert.
 
TacticalBongRip said:
I think you meant to say how do you change that "I to an E" which is what I did.

It's all about raising your awareness of yourself and your knowledge. Once you understand that it is your perception that makes you feel separate from others, you can take action to change that perception.

The action I took was reading some good books on the subject, taking acid, and smoking lots of cannabis.

Ask yourself the questions until you find the answers that lead you to new change. Reprogramming your brain man! Ala Timothy Leary =D
Click to expand...

Smoking weed is probably what helped the most. I can go ENTP or INTJ or just stay INTP now (well it took a few years...) I gave my new personalities names. (Is that bad?) Marijuana toxicity allows people to dissociate easily - especially INTPs with vivid imaginations about what they would like to be. Now just don't smoke tooooo much.
 
ebola? said:
The INTJ, on the other hand, will intuit what seems to be right, and then certainty will be reached in implementation. "Does it work?"
Click to expand...

As I was taught at the beginning of med school, the medical profession is highly INTJ-dominated, and I find this rings true. When approaching a mental challenge, they allow themselves a judiciously parsed amount of brainstorming, and then get right down to substantiating these brainstorms with hard evidence.

INTPs, I find, on the other hand don't have much taste for 'throwing ideas around.' They expect you to have a well thought out (and logically airtight) rationale or plan of action before you even open your mouth, if they're to continue to take you seriously.

Then there's INFPs, who are content to brainstorm endlessly and never get down to action =D
 
Then there's INFPs, who are content to brainstorm endlessly and never get down to action
Click to expand...

we do, but certainly not by means of rationale. Jameshyd pretty much nailed it, we think with our feelings. our motivation comes comes eniterly from there. for instance, i have a lot of trouble usually to get into strongly analytical philosophy (logical positivism and the likes). except for a few exceptions maybe, i see no merit is this kind of what i percieve to be narrow-minded thinking patterns. it seems to be intended that way though. perhaps its more of an INTP or INTJ thing. the thought of the broadness of scope of continental philosophy, with all the paradoxes and ambiguities, usually provokes some strong adverse reaction from many an analytic. i suspect you'll find many INFPs and INFJs on this side of the fence.
anyway, just a thought, don't shoot me if if your an intp with a taste for, say, derridas =D
 
^ Oh no, I've always tested as INFP or ENFP. Both my wife and my mother are INFJs. I agree with you -- I don't see philosophy as a ruthlessly darwinian bottom-up collaborative project toward ultimate and irrefutable truth. ("I'm not such a fan of David Hume" is my bellwether. If the person I'm talking to balks or looks down their nose at me when I say that, I make a note not to talk philosophy with them.) To me, there are as many valid philosophical frameworks as there are people, and talking philosophy is like playing a game with someone -- it's a way to connect by getting a glimpse inside someone else's inner world, and give them a glimpse into mine. I see it as more a sharing exercise, rather than something adversarial.
 
yup, thats definitely the F side :)
you seem to primarily focus on others and sharing, which makes sense seeing as you seem to border on the extravert side. i always test as introverted, and i notice that i primary think of it as exploring my own humanity and developing myself. i do also feel what you are saying about talking philosophy as a game and sharing an inner world, but i'd take that as secondary.
i definitely don't see it as something adversarial. but to many people it is; at least, thats what i note in many discussions i have, that while i simply point out, say, a distiction they seem to overlook; many people seem to feel 'attacked' in some way. as if what i am saying threatens some personal integrity. im not showing them THE PATH OF ALL PATHS, saying AND YOU MUST TAKE IT AS WELL, just the one i took, the distinctions i made, the possibilities i weighed, the order i carved in my world.
 
I've given up taking these tests, cos I seem to get a different answer every time! I suppose the answer tends to reflect a person's mood and state of mind at the time of the test. But after reading up on it, I think I'd consider myself an INFP for sure.

My main gripe with the Myers-Briggs system is that it's very black and white. You're either I or E; S or N; F or T; J or P. I think it would be more accurate for these four preferences to be extremes on a continuum, so someone can be mostly introverted but also slightly extroverted, and so on.
 
^That is how it works, as far as being lightly or strongly in one direction or the other. I don't see how being slightly extroverted is different from being a little introverted and a bit more extroverted...
 
^ No, it doesn't work like that. At least not in the same way as the Five Factor model. The person is simply considered introverted or extroverted. There's no grey area in between. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the MBTI:

Someone reporting a high score for extraversion over introversion cannot be correctly described as more extraverted: they simply have a clear preference.
Click to expand...
 
^Hmm, thanks for posting that. It's been awhile since I've looked at this at all... ("08-01-2007, 17:51 " would be a good estimate of how long ago, taken from the first page...)
 
Sweet P said:
.My main gripe with the Myers-Briggs system is that it's very black and white. You're either I or E; S or N; F or T; J or P. I think it would be more accurate for these four preferences to be extremes on a continuum, so someone can be mostly introverted but also slightly extroverted, and so on.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you took the real one? I've taken a couple of knockoffs on the net, as well as the real mccoy last year. One thing I noticed the real one had was exactly what you're talking about: a gamut for each of the four score items. It cleared a lot up for me to see that I was only ever so slightly introverted, but more at the ends of the other ones, especially N.

I do think the OCEAN test is better than the Myers-Briggs. But the latter is by no means complete crap. For now at least, the MBTI has a similar kind of upside to the top video game system or biggest brand of sports cards: greater popularity making for greater ease of sharing, and more fun literature about it.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
Are you sure you took the real one? I've taken a couple of knockoffs on the net, as well as the real mccoy last year. One thing I noticed the real one had was exactly what you're talking about: a gamut for each of the four score items. It cleared a lot up for me to see that I was only ever so slightly introverted, but more at the ends of the other ones, especially N.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I've done a few tests on the net, as well as a real one when I was studying psychology. None of them presented the results in percentages or scales... it just said "INFP" or whatever.
 
My main gripe with the Myers-Briggs system is that it's very black and white. You're either I or E; S or N; F or T; J or P. I think it would be more accurate for these four preferences to be extremes on a continuum, so someone can be mostly introverted but also slightly extroverted, and so on.
Click to expand...

It is actually quite difficult to interpret what these types of borderline scores mean. Your type (out of the sixteen possible) actually points to your preferences for styles of thought (cognitive functions), giving a list of your preferred four (out of eight possible), in order. So if you border on one dimension, it would indicate that you border between preferences for two lists of functions. Some of these are quite easy to interpret. For example, if your testing results indicate (E/I)NTP, there is complete overlap in terms of what these four functions will be, but they are just in different orders. However, if you get results indicating that you're an INT(J/P), for instance, there is no overlap in cognitive functions. And if you score borderline on two dimensions, this points to you laying at the intersection of four types...

ebola
 
Also, what gives with the ENFP-INT* affinity? :)
My best guess is that it's a combination of moderate functional overlap (2 functions for either INTPs or INTJs), but the different preferential ordering of said functions, introducing novel insight, compensating for INT*s' weaknesses.

But could I have found such in any pairing, pretty much (or maybe half of those possible)?

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top