INTps and ENTps

[Jonathan]

INTps and ENTps tend to describe themselves in very similar ways...e.g., loves to daydream, interested in ideas, tends to be disorganized, etc. However, it seems that they tend to see each other differently. It's interesting to see how INTps and ENTps come off from each other's perspective (going beyond the usual "this is what my contrary type is like" sort of thing).

If you're ENTp, how do you perceive INTps? In what ways are they different from you?

If you're INTp, how do you perceive ENTps? In what ways are they different from you?

[MySaviour]

I tend to not like ENTp women.. if their hidden agenda is satisfied, then they feel "accepted," and grant themselves the opportunity to be rude, degrading, tactlessly boastful, and etc. If their hidden agenda is not satisfied, then they are unreasonably insecure, and hypersensitive. They are nice when I first meet them, its the "later on" that gets interesting.

ENTp dudes (IRL) tend to have this *thing* around me. I dunno if they feel inferior, or are afraid, but they are always freaking on the defensive, and trying to get "above" me. I'm not going to lie, their actions really get to me. And by "get to me," I mean it annoys the hell out of me. Online, they are pretty cool.

I think what I don't like is the Ne.. it seems to make them so stupid, and out of touch. If I exude Ne, primarily, then I don't blame ANYONE for hating what I say.. AT ALL.

[Phaedrus]

Some differences between ENTps and INTps:

1. ENTps see originality more as a value in itself than I do as an INTp.

2. ENTps are more insecure of the worth of their own creations.

3. ENTps is in more need of positive feedback.

4. ENTps are more spontaneous in most situations.

5. ENTps are more negligent and make more careless mistakes in writing. Their texts are often not as well structured logically.

6. ENTps are better at spatial thinking and often score high on spatial intelligence tests.

7. ENTps laugh more.

8. ENTps have messier hair (in the Einsteinian way).

[Jonathan]

I think what I don't like is the Ne.. it seems to make them so stupid, and out of touch. If I exude Ne, primarily, then I don't blame ANYONE for hating what I say.. AT ALL.

You mean saying things off the cuff? Why would that bother you? Or you mean having to have the last word?

4. ENTps are more spontaneous in most situations.

6. ENTps are better at spatial thinking and often score high on spatial intelligence tests.

8. ENTps have messier hair (in the Einsteinian way).

These things actually describe me pretty well. However, I do have a haircut appointment on Monday.

[Phaedrus]

However, I do have a haircut appointment on Monday.

I was thinking of the appearance of ENTps when they arrive at the last minute for some appointment and haven't had time to get themselves in order.

[Phaedrus]

Do you know what your intelligence profile look like, Jonathan? You haven't commented on that when I have brought it up before. My empirical evidence is very limited, but I suspect that there could be a pattern here. My hypothesis is that in general ENTps are relatively better than INTps at spatial thinking and that INTps are relatively better than ENTps at language and conceptual logic.

I think that there is at least some truth in the statement made on more than one MBTI site and also mentioned by Keirsey: "Architects [INTPs] exhibit the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types." (Please Understand Me II, p. 206.) One thing mentioned about ENTPs, by Keirsey and others, is that they are good at functional analysis.

[Gilly]

Hmmm...too bad Keirsey is full of shit.

[Phaedrus]

Hmmm...too bad Keirsey is full of shit.

But not as full of shit as your way of arguing against him.

[Gilly]

Hmmm...too bad Keirsey is full of shit.

But not as full of shit as your way of arguing against him.

There's nothing to back up anything he says.

[Phaedrus]

There's nothing to back up anything he says.

That's a better argument. But still, what statements of his do you think are false? A lot of what he says is similar to what is said on MBTI sites, and at least some of their claims are based on empirical findings. Are there any specific parts of Keirsey's view that you think are in direct conflict with Socionics? And if there are, what is it that backs up those socionic statements?

[Jonathan]

I was thinking of the appearance of ENTps when they arrive at the last minute for some appointment and haven't had time to get themselves in order.

That's me too. Don't INTps also arrive at the last minute for things?

Do you know what your intelligence profile look like, Jonathan? You haven't commented on that when I have brought it up before.

Sorry, I must not have read that post. Is there some free online test that gives me my intelligence profile? Maybe I'll find something on Google...

According Wikipedia, "functional analysis" is "the study of complete normed vector spaces over the real or complex numbers." I'm not sure that's what Keirsey had in mind though?

[Gilly]

I don't think any kind of type should be said to "be better" at anything. Perhaps some have a propensity to do things more naturally, but an ISFj can easily be just as good at spacial thinking as an ENTp. In fact, in socionics, the highest mean IQ for a type belongs to ISFj.

(Just so you know, most people here will tell you that MBTI and Keirsey are both crap.)

I dunno, I can't explain ATM why I find socionics more credible, apart from the fact that it's based much more nearly on Jung's work than Keirsey or MBTI.

[Phaedrus]

Don't INTps also arrive at the last minute for things?

Yes. That's a similarity. But the Einsteinan hair is perhpas a difference. (I'm not saying that this is a strong argument for the claim that Einstein was an ENTp, though.)

According Wikipedia, "functional analysis" is "the study of complete normed vector spaces over the real or complex numbers." I'm not sure that's what Keirsey had in mind though?

I'm not sure what they are referring to either. Both MBTI sites and Keirsey mention it, and I think that I have seen some explanation of it, but I don't recall where I read it.

[Rocky]

INTps and ENTps tend to describe themselves in very similar ways...e.g., loves to daydream, interested in ideas, tends to be disorganized, etc.

In other words, every one is either INTP or ENTP.

6. ENTps are better at spatial thinking and often score high on spatial intelligence tests.

Explain what you mean by spatial logic.

8. ENTps have messier hair (in the Einsteinian way).

Strongly diagree.

[Rocky]

There's nothing to back up anything he says.

That's a better argument. But still, what statements of his do you think are false? A lot of what he says is similar to what is said on MBTI sites, and at least some of their claims are based on empirical findings. Are there any specific parts of Keirsey's view that you think are in direct conflict with Socionics? And if there are, what is it that backs up those socionic statements?

My views:

http://intuitivecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3474

[Jonathan]

I don't think any kind of type should be said to "be better" at anything.

I tend to agree, more or less...Type is more about motivations and outlook, although there are some characteristic skills that people of various types seem to form.

In particular, people of different types may be better at certain things relative to themselves. So, for example, someone who's very highly intelligent may be better at certain things one might associate with another type, but that person may still have stronger relative strengths in certain areas.

[Phaedrus]

I don't think any kind of type should be said to "be better" at anything. Perhaps some have a propensity to do things more naturally, but an ISFj can easily be just as good at spacial thinking as an ENTp.

That is very interesting. First I want to make clear that we are of course talking about statistical patterns here. Any single individual of any type could be better or worse than any single individual of another type on anything. But when you test a lot of people, as they have done in the MBTI "camp", some general patterns are bound to emerge. They (and Keirsey) claim, for example, that "INTJs are the highest achievers in school of all the types" (Please Understand Me II, p. 200). I wouldn't be surprised if that is true but I haven't investigated the matter myself.

In fact, in socionics, the highest mean IQ for a type belongs to ISFj.

Don't you agree that this is extremely interesting? My first question is: how do we know that that is true? How did they measure it? And if it is true, how do we explain it? All statements of this kind can be critically examined and tested empirically, and they definitely can (and should) be compared with similar statements made by Keirsey, MBTI or whomever.

(Just so you know, most people here will tell you that MBTI and Keirsey are both crap.)

I can imagine that, but not many seem to be able to support that claim with substantial arguments.

I dunno, I can't explain ATM why I find socionics more credible, apart from the fact that it's based much more nearly on Jung's work than Keirsey or MBTI.

I agree. Socionics is probably closer to the truth. But I also think that we can learn something from both Keirsey and MBTT. And we should probably focus more on the empirical findings than on the theories.

[Jonathan]

I remember looking at the school achievement data for MBTI types, years ago...It's in the MBTI manual; not sure where I have that at the moment.

As I recall, IJ types did very well. It seemed that I, N, T, and J all correlated with school success, but as individual factors, and collectively with the INTJ type coming out above the other types.

That's not surprising because school generally emphasizes doing tasks individually, focusing on specific assignments, taking tests, etc. Social skills usually don't equate with school success.

The ISFJs I know tend to have done very well in school. They're serious, organized, and have NT as their dual side.

[Creepy-pokeball]

MBTI, Socionics, Keirsey, etc are all about equal to me. Theyre all flawed but theyre fun to learn from.

[Phaedrus]

Theyre all flawed but theyre fun to learn from.

If you think that they are all flawed it would be interesting to hear your arguments for that claim. In which way are they flawed? Feel welcome to give examples.

[Rocky]

You appear to have missed my last two posts:

1) Explain what your definition is of "spatial logic", otherwise the use of the term doesn't make sense.

2) I gave detailed reasons for disliking Kiersey in the link, with valid points (not just "I hate him" stuff).

[Creepy-pokeball]

Theyre all flawed but theyre fun to learn from.

If you think that they are all flawed it would be interesting to hear your arguments for that claim. In which way are they flawed? Feel welcome to give examples.

Read my 1+ years of whining about them on this forum lol.

[Jonathan]

Theyre all flawed but theyre fun to learn from.

I think one area where Socionics is limited, or that is, where there's a potential for the understanding to be extended, is in the area of the flexibility of the human mind. That's something that relates to this thread actually: The fact that INTp and ENTp aren't as far from each other as might be predicted in theory.

In theory, an INTp's mental apparatus is in a certain relatively fixed state, where N is pointing in one direction, and T is pointing the other way, so that to act like an ENTp, one would have to rotate these so to speak, which, in theory would be a difficult task; or at best, one's emphasizing functions 7&8, but not living out of one's main functions.

Hence, if an INTp were to become more extraverted, s/he would appear like an ENTj, but never like an ENTp.

This is true in certain circumstances, I think, like when an INTp becomes a lawyer, politician, etc; in these cases, INTp's comes out very strongly; but...

...Overall, I think there's more of a continuum. Here's one way I look at it; you may not agree, but I think there's something to it:

When you imagine something, it automatically has structure. There is a degree of internal structure and external structure. Roughly, I think we can say that these correspond to and (not the underlying motivations, but the ways of thinking, in this case).

And when you imagine something, I think the mix of these kinds of structures can be different...anywhere from almost all internal ( ) to almost all external ( )...and everything in between.

[EDIT - Of course, I realize that in Socionics, T isn't just structure; it's evaluative; but it seems to me that the internal/external quality of the N is still inverse to the internal/external quality of the structure; I know this may not make sense to everyone, but try to see it. ]

So, unless someone can show me why there should be such a sharp cut-off, I think there's a lot of gray area between INTp and ENTp.

In fact, with the billions of people around, you probably have people representing every which combination between the types that you could think of. The theory suggests some sort of "cut-off" between the types, but when you look at data on this sort of thing, you see normal distributions in the various scales, and it's very hard to find evidence that people are clustered within types. There's a lot of "in between."

[Phaedrus]

You appear to have missed my last two posts:

1) Explain what your definition is of "spatial logic", otherwise the use of the term doesn't make sense.

2) I gave detailed reasons for disliking Kiersey in the link, with valid points (not just "I hate him" stuff).

Yes, you are right. I missed them. Sorry about that.

I didn't mention "spatial logic" (I don't know what that is), but I did mention spatial thinking and spatial intelligence. And I was thinking of what you are good at when you have to solve problems like, for example, those in which you see a picture of a three-dimensional object and you are supposed to rotate it in your mind to see how it looks like when you have done that. In some IQ tests you get a profile of your test results in different areas, like verbal intelligence, numerical intelligence, spatial intelligence, and so on. At least three real life ENTps have got peak results in spatial intelligence, which I myself am not as good at, even though we are more or less comparable in our overall IQ level. It's nothing more than that: an empirical observation of unsure value.

I've read the link. At this point I have nothing special to say about it other than what we have already discussed. Maybe we could come back to it later if necessary. Just one little thing I thought of when I read it: Jung thought of himself as a judging type, didn't he? So, if he was not mistaken he was more likely an INTj than an INTp, right? What do you think about that? Couldn't the fact that some sites think he was an INTP be explained by their mistaken assumption that an INTP's primary function is introverted thinking (Ti)?

[Phaedrus]

The theory suggests some sort of "cut-off" between the types, but when you look at data on this sort of thing, you see normal distributions in the various scales, and it's very hard to find evidence that people are clustered within types. There's a lot of "in between."

Perhaps you are right. But when I'm not looking at the data from tests but at real life persons, I think that I can see that "cut-off" between them. They really seem to be clustered within types.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Rocky does rock but I hate that site

[Ms. Kensington]

Theyre all flawed but theyre fun to learn from.

I think one area where Socionics is limited, or that is, where there's a potential for the understanding to be extended, is in the area of the flexibility of the human mind. That's something that relates to this thread actually: The fact that INTp and ENTp aren't as far from each other as might be predicted in theory.

In theory, an INTp's mental apparatus is in a certain relatively fixed state, where N is pointing in one direction, and T is pointing the other way, so that to act like an ENTp, one would have to rotate these so to speak, which, in theory would be a difficult task; or at best, one's emphasizing functions 7&8, but not living out of one's main functions.

Hence, if an INTp were to become more extraverted, s/he would appear like an ENTj, but never like an ENTp.

This is true in certain circumstances, I think, like when an INTp becomes a lawyer, politician, etc; in these cases, INTp's comes out very strongly; but...

...Overall, I think there's more of a continuum. Here's one way I look at it; you may not agree, but I think there's something to it:

When you imagine something, it automatically has structure. There is a degree of internal structure and external structure. Roughly, I think we can say that these correspond to and (not the underlying motivations, but the ways of thinking, in this case).

And when you imagine something, I think the mix of these kinds of structures can be different...anywhere from almost all internal ( ) to almost all external ( )...and everything in between.

[EDIT - Of course, I realize that in Socionics, T isn't just structure; it's evaluative; but it seems to me that the internal/external quality of the N is still inverse to the internal/external quality of the structure; I know this may not make sense to everyone, but try to see it. ]

So, unless someone can show me why there should be such a sharp cut-off, I think there's a lot of gray area between INTp and ENTp.

In fact, with the billions of people around, you probably have people representing every which combination between the types that you could think of. The theory suggests some sort of "cut-off" between the types, but when you look at data on this sort of thing, you see normal distributions in the various scales, and it's very hard to find evidence that people are clustered within types. There's a lot of "in between."

which data are you talking about? please give at least one example and why you draw that conclusion.

Also, i have had your thoughts before as well. However i agree with what an earlier poster said that the real life examples do seem to indicate that people fall into a certain type. And what i agree with is this: that a single person is limited in their mental abilities. I think what we are perceiving is that both extraverted and introverted kinsd of funtions, like intuition, are similar but changing the way it's used, to grossly simplify, would require extreme reworking of the psyche, because it has to work with the other functions. its like a rubik's cube.