Yeah, I think I know what you mean; and think I remember you said he's a mathematician....so with training in that particular displine, he probably sees things in a very unique way.
Well ... he is many things ... He has studied and taught mathematics for sure ... but he has also worked as a police man, he has a university degree in psychology ... and one in system theory (I'm not sure of the name in English ... science of systems?). What is typical of him is what I refer to as his "subjective" perspective. He looks at the world from a human perspective, clearly influenced by Martin Buber and other representatives of the existentialist school in psychology. In his perspective human are primarily agents. He is heavily opposed to views that want to reduce humans to objects. He has turned into (or always has been) a relativist in science. He cites Kuhn and Feyerabend. As I might have said in one post some time ago, he interprets Gödel's theorems in the postmodernist, relativistic way, which I see as misguided and opposed to the way Gödel himself interpreted it.

I've noticed also that some people who may be INTjs seem to be so caught up in proving minute details based on other logical details that they don't always see what appear to me as more big-picture trends.
If that is the right way to put it, I agree. I think that I almost always try to focus on big-picture trends.


@detail

What you share is , , and , not "P".
Think about it again, please.

What I have described in my relations with ENTps seem to be consistent with how the relation between ENTps and INTps is described in Socionics. I have left out Ganin's description because it might blur things in comparison to these two:

Relations of Contrast
Partners can exchange information when they have common ground. They look at problems from different perspectives and, thus, their communication remains shallow – as if they talk foreign languages. They find it very hard to work together, because they can't concentrate even on the little things. They can't very well coordinate their actions. When they meet they usually get attracted by opponent's oddity, even mysteriousity. Should they get married, their family life usually keeps balancing on the edge of divorce and often results in one.

Extinguishment (from Rick's site)
Partners feel a strange draw to each other that seems to promise much but never delivers. Partners seem to be interested in the same fields and have similar yearnings, but they describe things in a strange and fascinating, but ultimately unfathomable way. Expectations that go beyond having an interesting conversation are almost never met.
And what I have described in my relations with ENTjs seem to be consistent with how the Mirror relation is described in Socionics:

Mirror relations
These are relations of mutual correction. Mirror partners have similar interests and ideas, but a slightly different understanding of the same problems. Each partner can see only half of one problem. Therefore the partners always find what the other partner is thinking interesting. Usually partners quickly realise that they are very like-minded.

The area of confidence of one partner is always the area of creativity for the other partner. What one partner considers solid and final appears incomplete and changeable for the other partner. This difference may often puzzle the partners especially when they fulfil their mutual plans. It seems for them as if the other partner simply misunderstood the main concept. Therefore partners attempt to correct each other's understanding but usually fail, because each partner acts from their confident side. For the same reason, Mirror partners can be involved in really hot disputes and can even come to blows in the name of their opinion.

However, Mirror partners are often very good friends. When they work together on the same project, their mutual correction and adjustment becomes a constructive criticism that is usually accepted as useful. The main discomfort in these relations is caused by the difference in Judgement and Perception between the partners. Mirror partners generally agree about setting near future goals, but disagree about global aims. Mirror relations usually lack warm atmosphere between partners. This situation normally changes in presence of a third person who is Dual to one partner and an Activity partner to the other.

Relations of Mirror
Partners have a lot in common – they are both Thinkers or Feelers, albeit they differ on Extravert–Introvert and Rationality–Irrationality scales. This kind of relations results in active communication in their strong areas. Whatever is contemplated by one is immediately realized by the other. They can learn a lot from each other, but sometimes they are tempted to be obtrusive in teaching. Conflicts in this type of relations are very unlikely, since no strong sides oppress the weak sides of each other.

Mirror
Partners can be themselves around each other without causing misunderstandings. Partners have a correct intuitive understanding of each other and are rarely surprised by anything the other does or says. Arguments are very rare. They always have things to say on the same topics and easily come to a consensus, but at the same time put opposite emphasis on things, creating a revisionary effect. These relations are highly verbally oriented, with partners discussing their hobby topics (and avoiding most others) and revising and adding to each other's views. Partners tire from the discussionary nature of the relationship and try to separate for work and rest. Partners immediately liven up when someone else shows up who is the dual of one and the activator of the other partner.
We could of course discuss the details in these descriptions, but overall it is my understanding that it makes more sense to think of the ENTj as my Mirror than the ENTp.