NT types in conversation

[Jonathan]

I was having some conversations with some people who I thought were of various types, and came up with the following broad generalizations of how NT types may appear in conversation. See if you agree.


In talking to INTps, it seems that they have views about specific "content." They have an idea of what "reality" is. They might say something like, "the news reports may give you this impression, but if you look at the whole context, the entire history, you'll see that it's really like [such-and-such]." In making their arguments, they like to appeal to the idea that if a person were to see all the information, that person would come to a certain conclusion. Often, this creates the impression that the INTp has a tremendous store of knowledge; yet INTp's ability is more in seeing the pattern, the trend, the insight, that comes from knowledge, rather than merely knowing lots of facts.

In talking to INTjs, it seems that they have lots of interests. They may be interested in math, computer programming, music, and other endeavors that involve creating with structure. However, they also may tend to be a little reticent to share specific unique views the way INTps do. They have a high logical standard that keeps them from making statements that may be incorrect. If they do voice opinions, they may seem firm and absolute, since they see these as based on absolute logic. Sometimes they may appear to put a lot of energy into pointing out a distinction that seems to be about something rather small or trivial to others. This is because they'd rather be absolutely sure about an obscure or minor point than say something stupid about something more far-reaching.

ENTps seem to like to talk a lot about reinterpretations of reality....e.g., Everyone thinks that white is white and black is black, but really black is white. They like to make paradoxical statements, or statements that show that what people often think is good is really bad. They tend to have lots of enthusiasm about their ideas, but over time they may jump from one idea to the next as if the old one really doesn't matter that much.

ENTjs tend to make discrete, logical-based points about things. They're very open to logical debate and discussion, because they can always come up with a reason to support or challenge any viewpoint. They may identify themselves with a certain way of thinking...e.g., a certain philosophy or theology, a certain school of thought, a certain corporate position; they may differentiate this from competing schools of thought that they disapprove of. Overall, one gets the sense that they believe they must make choices, accepting this way of seeing things and rejecting some other way of seeing things. They try to ground their reasoning in far-reaching inductions that allow them to seem quite certain about a particular viewpoint.

[Rocky]

This is based on the assumption that you're what type now?

[Jonathan]

This is based on the assumption that you're what type now?

LOL, I'm still undecided after all this time. I'm the "typeless observer." I love your Jung quote by the way...It's probably the wisest thing on this whole forum.

[Rocky]

Thanks.

But I think it's hard to tell the difference between, say, INTJ and INTP, if you think you could be either type... how do you know these people are witer INTP or INTJ? Why not the other way around?

[Jonathan]

Thanks.

But I think it's hard to tell the difference between, say, INTJ and INTP, if you think you could be either type... how do you know these people are witer INTP or INTJ? Why not the other way around?

Well, if I were certain, I wouldn't bother to post the descriptions. I always hope that people will challenge my assertions and that I'll learn something new from that.

In general, I do think that a person can accurately tell other people's types (at least, people who fit well into the "prototypical" types) even if there's some ambiguity about one's own type. Of course, in this particular case, there are different viewpoints about what the true INTj and INTp are like.

But I think my descriptions here represent a way of looking at it that's possibly compatible with some of the different extremes expressed on this forum. I could be wrong though...what do you think?

[oyburger]

To be honest, I can see my conversations in both INTp and INTj descriptions. The combination seems to annoy the people I'm closest to

[Phaedrus]

In talking to INTps, it seems that they have views about specific "content." They have an idea of what "reality" is. They might say something like, "the news reports may give you this impression, but if you look at the whole context, the entire history, you'll see that it's really like [such-and-such]." In making their arguments, they like to appeal to the idea that if a person were to see all the information, that person would come to a certain conclusion. Often, this creates the impression that the INTp has a tremendous store of knowledge; yet INTp's ability is more in seeing the pattern, the trend, the insight, that comes from knowledge, rather than merely knowing lots of facts.

This is a very (extremely) accurate description of how I see myself and other INTps. (Funny thing ... if I wait a while Jonathan usually expresses my exact thoughts even more accurately than I would have been able to do myself ...)

[Jonathan]

Thanks

[Zeia]

In talking to INTps, it seems that they have views about specific "content." They have an idea of what "reality" is. They might say something like, "the news reports may give you this impression, but if you look at the whole context, the entire history, you'll see that it's really like [such-and-such]." In making their arguments, they like to appeal to the idea that if a person were to see all the information, that person would come to a certain conclusion. Often, this creates the impression that the INTp has a tremendous store of knowledge; yet INTp's ability is more in seeing the pattern, the trend, the insight, that comes from knowledge, rather than merely knowing lots of facts.

This is a very (extremely) accurate description of how I see myself and other INTps. (Funny thing ... if I wait a while Jonathan usually expresses my exact thoughts even more accurately than I would have been able to do myself ...)

I disagree with this INTp description mostly in these parts :

"the news reports may give you this impression, but if you look at the whole context, the entire history, you'll see that it's really like [such-and-such]."

INTp's are described not as seeing "the big-picture" but more seeing the fine details. The Ne in INTj's and ENTp's is attributed to this.

yet INTp's ability is more in seeing the pattern, the trend, the insight, that comes from knowledge, rather than merely knowing lots of facts.

I'm also inclined to disagree with this mostly on the fact that INTp's (Not speaking about myself) are inclined to see realistic trends and insights rather than from knowledge. Ti is attributed to seeking knowledge because it is knowledge, or thinking for the sake of thinking while Te is more of applied knowledge, using what one knows realistically.

[XoX]

I think reality is more complex than this but I still think these descriptions make sense to me.

I relate myself mostly to INTp description. And the ENTp description reminds me of one former boss I had.

INTps:
"they have an idea of what "reality" is"

ENTps:
"seem to like to talk a lot about reinterpretations of reality"

This was our exact problem. I tried to explain the boss how reality really is like and why we should do A instead of B. It was futile because the boss didn't believe in my interpretation of "reality". The boss's idea was not to be bound by any single interpretation of reality but instead creating whole new interpretation and selling that interpretation along with our product.

Now I can understand this kind of visionary attitude and respect it IF we actually had the muscle to do that. So it again came down to "yes I can understand your point of view but in REALITY we have no muscle to set the trends instead we have to predict where they are heading." And the answer was like "Yes I can understand reality may seem that way but that is why we have to REINTERPRET it and sell our interpretation first". And I was like "Yes, we might be able to do that after we have the muscle needed but our group is very small so it is not possible at the moment. Other players set the trends and currently we must adapt". And this would go on and on.

So I took pride in my ability to see reality and where it was heading. The boss took pride in the ability to not be bound by reality but instead creating a whole new kind of interpretation. I wonder if INTp/ENTp relations are like this? Somehow I feel way more Ni than Ne after writing this

[Jonathan]

INTp's are described not as seeing "the big-picture" but more seeing the fine details. The Ne in INTj's and ENTp's is attributed to this.

...
I'm also inclined to disagree with this mostly on the fact that INTp's (Not speaking about myself) are inclined to see realistic trends and insights rather than from knowledge. Ti is attributed to seeking knowledge because it is knowledge, or thinking for the sake of thinking while Te is more of applied knowledge, using what one knows realistically.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. I think you're saying that actually INTps see fine details, whereas in my description they see the big-picture. Is that what you're saying?

I thought N types in general tend to describe themselves as seeing the big picture, whereas S types are the ones that see the fine details, no?

Wouldn't an INTp or INFp be more "big picture" oriented compared to, say, an ISTj or ISFj?

As to the second point, I think you're just objecting to the semantics...i.e., my use of the word "knowledge"? It seems you agree that INTps see trends and insights. Obviously, those trends and insights come from some sort of data, at least some sort of sample or input, however slight compared to the intuitive extrapolations that may result. That's all I meant by "knowledge" in this context.

[Jonathan]

This was our exact problem. I tried to explain the boss how reality really is like and why we should do A instead of B. It was futile because the boss didn't believe in my interpretation of "reality". The boss's idea was not to be bound by any single interpretation of reality but instead creating whole new interpretation and selling that interpretation along with our product.

...
So I took pride in my ability to see reality and where it was heading. The boss took pride in the ability to not be bound by reality but instead creating a whole new kind of interpretation. I wonder if INTp/ENTp relations are like this? Somehow I feel way more Ni than Ne after writing this

I didn't mean to imply that INTps side with what seems more realistic, practical, or down-to-earth, as opposed to more ambitious, idealistic, unusual approaches. Although maybe other people here think that's the case?

When I wrote "reality," I actually meant what INTp perceives to be reality, which may or may not seem realistic, practical, or down-to-earth to others.

My guess is that INTps may see ENTps as even less practical than themselves, more "out there," less aware of logical restrictions...but are also able to identify with ENTps because both are intuitive, imaginative, and able to see things beyond "face value."

Another factor in real-life situations is that organization level can affect one's perspective. No matter what type people actually are internally, the "workers" generally have a better sense of what's realistic. People higher up in companies may be less aware of the small details. Also, if their ideas cause everyone else to have to work harder, they're usually not affected directly, whereas workers know that an unrealistic decision could cause them to have put in extra hours.

[XoX]

This was our exact problem. I tried to explain the boss how reality really is like and why we should do A instead of B. It was futile because the boss didn't believe in my interpretation of "reality". The boss's idea was not to be bound by any single interpretation of reality but instead creating whole new interpretation and selling that interpretation along with our product.

...
So I took pride in my ability to see reality and where it was heading. The boss took pride in the ability to not be bound by reality but instead creating a whole new kind of interpretation. I wonder if INTp/ENTp relations are like this? Somehow I feel way more Ni than Ne after writing this

I didn't mean to imply that INTps side with what seems more realistic, practical, or down-to-earth, as opposed to more ambitious, idealistic, unusual approaches. Although maybe other people here think that's the case?

When I wrote "reality," I actually meant what INTp perceives to be reality, which may or may not seem realistic, practical, or down-to-earth to others.

My guess is that INTps may see ENTps as even less practical than themselves, more "out there," less aware of logical restrictions...but are also able to identify with ENTps because both are intuitive, imaginative, and able to see things beyond "face value."

Another factor in real-life situations is that organization level can affect one's perspective. No matter what type people actually are internally, the "workers" generally have a better sense of what's realistic. People higher up in companies may be less aware of the small details. Also, if their ideas cause everyone else to have to work harder, they're usually not affected directly, whereas workers know that an unrealistic decision could cause them to have put in extra hours.

Heh. You misinterpreted me here pretty much totally I actually find this post you made somehow ignorant and somewhat offensive (I'm in Rocky mode now ). I still think your original post was very useful. I departed from that job eventually and now looking back (it has been years now) my interpretation of industry trends was correct so I'm happy I did that. I still keep in contact with some co-workers and to me it seems they are still doing their "reinterpretation of reality" without making much progress or showing concrete results. They live in their happy chappy fantasy land creating their happy chappy revolution and their competitors produce results and make money. Perhaps there will be a time when all this changes and their revolutionary ideas hit the sweet spot but so far it hasn't happened and it still seems they are out of touch with "reality".

And btw I haven't seen many people who work more hours than I do. Just that sometimes bs is bs and no reinterpretation can change that. It is very hard for me to support an idea or direction if I don't see it become productive in the long term. And I don't want to waste my time on that kind of ideas. I tend to trust my evaluations on these issues over other people no matter how high position they are.

And I do respect ENTps creativity. Just it seems that they are SO focused on changing and reinterpreting things. If the current approach would produce best results even then it has to be changed. And then changed again. And again. I generally believe in identifying the most relevant points needing a change and focusing whatever limited resources there are on those points. There is a time for a revolutionary change too but if you try start a revolution every day then it is a recipe for disaster.

Disclaimer: I base this thing on one ENTp (who might not be ENTp after all!). So if I'm guilty of typism or something then my apologies Just something about the previous post made me full of "holy anger". I'm getting cooler now but I think I will still post this.

[Jonathan]

Gee, sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive. I was just pointing out that job roles can also come into play in the way people behave (e.g., managers sometimes being removed from reality), and also clarifying the fact that "reality" may mean different things to different people.

But sorry...I don't know your old boss, and I didn't mean to sound critical about what you had said.

I think your observations about the ENp boss are probably typical of some ENp bosses....I can see how it would be like that.

[XoX]

Gee, sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive. I was just pointing out that job roles can also come into play in the way people behave (e.g., managers sometimes being removed from reality), and also clarifying the fact that "reality" may mean different things to different people.

But sorry...I don't know your old boss, and I didn't mean to sound critical about what you had said.

I think your observations about the ENp boss are probably typical of some ENp bosses....I can see how it would be like that.

Heh. It is not that serious But yes you are absolutely right that "reality" may mean different things to different people. And this sounds like a functional difference to me. E.g. for someone who prefers Ni over Ne their perception of future trends IS reality or at least feels very real. They are very sure they have correctly perceived the most probable direction of future. Someone who prefers Ne over Ni is way more suspicious towards any "trends" they may perceive and likely to believe any trend can be changed (by them perhaps). Because if future was somehow 100% fixed then their Ne would become pretty useless. Same thing with Ni. If future is "random" in the sense that the perceived "trends" are just illusions then Ni becomes useless.

The idea was that ENTp/INTp difference might show this difference very clearly. An ENTp might have this sense that nothing concerning future is fixed, every trend can be changed and most of all _they_ possess the capability and desire to change any and every trend and well do pretty much anything they wan't An INTp instead might have such sureness of how future will develop that this becomes a reality to them and they refuse to consider other scenarios or put effort to work towards any goal that conflicts with this perceived future "reality". I guess INTj and ENTj should have Ne/Ni more balanced than INTp and ENTp. And healthy ENTps and INTps will probably not get fixed on using only Ne or Ni but the priorization should show clear difference in how they approach life and cause occasional (heated) arguments.

I'm not sure how you see this issue. We have a habbit to slightly misinterpret the meaning of what the other one was saying but I hope this comes out as intended

[Phaedrus]

E.g. for someone who prefers Ni over Ne their perception of future trends IS reality or at least feels very real. They are very sure they have correctly perceived the most probable direction of future. Someone who prefers Ne over Ni is way more suspicious towards any "trends" they may perceive and likely to believe any trend can be changed (by them perhaps). Because if future was somehow 100% fixed then their Ne would become pretty useless. Same thing with Ni. If future is "random" in the sense that the perceived "trends" are just illusions then Ni becomes useless.

The idea was that ENTp/INTp difference might show this difference very clearly. An ENTp might have this sense that nothing concerning future is fixed, every trend can be changed and most of all _they_ possess the capability and desire to change any and every trend and well do pretty much anything they wan't An INTp instead might have such sureness of how future will develop that this becomes a reality to them and they refuse to consider other scenarios or put effort to work towards any goal that conflicts with this perceived future "reality". I guess INTj and ENTj should have Ne/Ni more balanced than INTp and ENTp. And healthy ENTps and INTps will probably not get fixed on using only Ne or Ni but the priorization should show clear difference in how they approach life and cause occasional (heated) arguments.

Interesting points. I haven't thought about this aspect, but it fits my view of INTps and the other types. If you are right about this, it might help explain the INTp tendency to fatalism and passiveness, and that the INTjs and the ENTps (not to mention some other types) dislike the thought of a fixed future. This is a difference between these types that I have seen in real life.

[Jonathan]

Interesting points. I haven't thought about this aspect, but it fits my view of INTps and the other types. If you are right about this, it might help explain the INTp tendency to fatalism and passiveness, and that the INTjs and the ENTps (not to mention some other types) dislike the thought of a fixed future. This is a difference between these types that I have seen in real life.

Personally, I always think I can change the future from past trends. I always hate it when people say that I won't do something because I haven't done it yet, or that I'll never get to it because I haven't gotten to it in the past, or that I won't succeed at something because I haven't succeeded at it before. Despite all the past data, I always hold out hope...

Maybe that's typical Alpha behavior?

[Zeia]

Interesting points. I haven't thought about this aspect, but it fits my view of INTps and the other types. If you are right about this, it might help explain the INTp tendency to fatalism and passiveness, and that the INTjs and the ENTps (not to mention some other types) dislike the thought of a fixed future. This is a difference between these types that I have seen in real life.

Personally, I always think I can change the future from past trends. I always hate it when people say that I won't do something because I haven't done it yet, or that I'll never get to it because I haven't gotten to it in the past, or that I won't succeed at something because I haven't succeeded at it before. Despite all the past data, I always hold out hope...

Maybe that's typical Alpha behavior?

Definiitley not like me.

[Rocky]

FWIW, INTPs are probably the most concrete of the NTs.

[Phaedrus]

INTPs are probably the most concrete of the NTs.

What do you mean by "concrete"? In what sense? Could you give an example?

[Phaedrus]

Personally, I always think I can change the future from past trends.

Strictly speaking, it is logically impossible to change the future, but of course that insight has no practical consequences.

I always hate it when people say that I won't do something because I haven't done it yet, or that I'll never get to it because I haven't gotten to it in the past, or that I won't succeed at something because I haven't succeeded at it before. Despite all the past data, I always hold out hope...

We are exactly alike in this, Jonathan. That we can't change the future does not put any limitations on our freedom. If it is true that you will succeed at something, it will happen. But you don't change the future by succeeding. You meet your destiny.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, "changing the future" is an illogical shorthand to describe something else. A better terminology would be "breaking out of past trends" or "doing things that would appear unlikely based on past events."

@Rocky: Yeah, I wonder what you mean about INTps being the most concrete NTs. Please explain.

[oyburger]

Personally, I always think I can change the future from past trends. I always hate it when people say that I won't do something because I haven't done it yet, or that I'll never get to it because I haven't gotten to it in the past, or that I won't succeed at something because I haven't succeeded at it before. Despite all the past data, I always hold out hope...

Maybe that's typical Alpha behavior?

I'm the same way, but maybe for me its just stubborness. I tend to get the attitude "You think I can't do this because I haven't done this before? Screw you". Sometimes I fail and sometimes I succeed. I just don't want someone to take away any possiblities from me.

[Rocky]

My INTP Dad always talks about being "concrete", specific, and detail-oriented. He thinks that anyone would be foolish to ignore those qualities. It's more about being well-rounded then anything else, but I don't see THIS type of thing in the other NTs. Not as often at least.

[detail]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

[Mastermind]

To be honest, I can see my conversations in both INTp and INTj descriptions. The combination seems to annoy the people I'm closest to

I completely agree with Oyburger. I'm the same way.

[Mastermind]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

You know, I would encourage you to be more gender nueatral [sp?] in your statment, there are, in fact, many NT females.

[Zeia]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

You know, I would encourage you to be more gender nueatral [sp?] in your statment, there are, in fact, many NT females.

He is actually gramatically correct, encompassing both genders.

[Joy]

which of the NTs is most likely to learn best by studying examples and clarify that they understand something by using simple metaphors?

[detail]

which of the NTs is most likely to learn best by studying examples and clarify that they understand something by using simple metaphors?

ENTps.

[Joy]

why is that? I would think that Ne and Ti are more interested in the details of the theory and less concerned with the actual application.

[FDG]

which of the NTs is most likely to learn best by studying examples and clarify that they understand something by using simple metaphors?

extraverts

[Joy]

[detail]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

You know, I would encourage you to be more gender nueatral [sp?] in your statment, there are, in fact, many NT females.

I don't know the exact rule in english, but in french, the "masculine" (Litteral translation from french) gender is neutrally used when both genders are reffered to or when there are no ways of being sure about the subject's gender(s). Gender applies to objects too actually and i accidentally used "he" to refer to the word "type" as it would have been done in french while i should have used "it". It wouldn't have occured if the sentence was correct in the first place though, because a type can't be or not be concrete in the sense that i meant but an individual can. Anyways, who cares?

[Logos]

why is that? I would think that Ne and Ti are more interested in the details of the theory and less concerned with the actual application.

I think that's because Ne and Ti try to use what they know about the components and details of a theory in order to be able to apply it in a broader manner or in situations outside of its original design.

[detail]

why is that? I would think that Ne and Ti are more interested in the details of the theory and less concerned with the actual application.

Because to most ENTps, processes (and concepts) are considered as objects so it's not uncommon to see an ENTp saying two objects are "the same thing" when there are huge differences between the two objects. It happens to INTjs too but they will not verbalize it as much as ENTps.

extraverts

True but not to the same extent as ENTps do. I considered Joy's question was "comparative", in that she asked for the type(s) in which this trait stands out more than in the other types, so i agree with your answer as well.

[olduser]

I think that's because Ne and Ti try to use what they know about the components and details of a theory in order to be able to apply it in a broader manner or in situations outside of its original design.

i know an 80 year old NeTi man who is incapable of regular care of his waste functions. He can think himself to the bathroom.

[Mastermind]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

You know, I would encourage you to be more gender nueatral [sp?] in your statment, there are, in fact, many NT females.

I don't know the exact rule in english, but in french, the "masculine" (Litteral translation from french) gender is neutrally used when both genders are reffered to or when there are no ways of being sure about the subject's gender(s). Gender applies to objects too actually and i accidentally used "he" to refer to the word "type" as it would have been done in french while i should have used "it". It wouldn't have occured if the sentence was correct in the first place though, because a type can't be or not be concrete in the sense that i meant but an individual can. Anyways, who cares?

Yeah? Well, I'm using English, I don't know about you.

[detail]

Any NT type can be concrete if they integrate this value and recognize areas where they are not concrete (Because every NT type by default has areas in which he is absolutely NOT concrete).

You know, I would encourage you to be more gender nueatral [sp?] in your statment, there are, in fact, many NT females.

I don't know the exact rule in english, but in french, the "masculine" (Litteral translation from french) gender is neutrally used when both genders are reffered to or when there are no ways of being sure about the subject's gender(s). Gender applies to objects too actually and i accidentally used "he" to refer to the word "type" as it would have been done in french while i should have used "it". It wouldn't have occured if the sentence was correct in the first place though, because a type can't be or not be concrete in the sense that i meant but an individual can. Anyways, who cares?

Yeah? Well, I'm using English, I don't know about you.

This apparently didn't prevent you from misunderstanding the explanation, "Master"mind.

[Logos]

He can think himself to the bathroom.

What?