This is a meta topic on the difference between how xNTJ's and xNTP's contribute to the forum and discussion in general. The objective of this post is to increase the overall efficiency of discussion by increasing awareness of our relative strengths. I have narrowed the personality-space down to two categories for the sake of simplicity. Generally, the introversion-extroversion dimension has little effect on the way people contribute to the forum. Sorry S,F-dominate folks, but I wanted to simplify. We enjoy your presence!
There is an argument to be made that both groups start to adopt the ability to utilize each others cognitive functions as they mature, though they will never reach the same level of competency without excessive brain hacking.
xNTJ (relevant cognitive functions):
Ni - Introverted iNtuition - A perceiving function that takes data and unconsciously produces insight (convergent thinking).
Te - Extroverted Thinking - A judging function that measures the validity of an idea based on external data.
xNTP (relevant cognitive functions):
Ti - Introverted Thinking - A judging function that measures the validity of an idea based on internal consistency.
Ne - Extroverted iNtuition - A perceiving function that takes data and makes connections (divergent thinking).
xNTJ (relative strengths):
Strategic thinking
Discovering strategies
Quickly accessing the efficiency of a plan based on goals
Quickly examining the utility of an idea
xNTP (relative strengths):
Creative thinking
Discovering possibilities
Quickly accessing the possibilities of a situation
Quickly examining the consistency of an idea
What other comparisons can we make? How can the interactions between these groups be made more efficient? What activities should be allocated to which group during a research collaboration? Is this sort of analysis even necessary?
I think there is something to your analysis, but you don't have the Types quite right. I am an eNTP, not an INTP. Everybody in my FOO was either an NFP or an NTP (one summer my eNXP father gave us all t-shirts with the family motto "Hang Loose" printed on them. Js do not "hang loose.") My own kids are INTP and eNtJ, so almost everybody on this forum seems like some degree of relative I might have had. For instance, Fish and daylen remind me so much of my 2 kids, I can easily imagine the 4 of them having a conversation over beers at a Trivia Night. Jacob is like some younger brother I didn't have who would have been very useful. You are like a younger version of the sort of man (EJ)who most often wants to date me and so actually does date me. My e is too under-developed and shy for me to ever date an INTJ (wearing a cute red t-shirt and smiling at somebody in Physics 302 is not strong enough of a signal), but the other type I frequently date would be (IF), because although they are just as reserved as (IT), their mopeyness renders them more approachable. My current BF is an EXFJ, so he could be described as a mopey-man-of-action. He will get very sad/mad for about 5 minutes, and then he will suddenly switch gears and do something about it, in rapid cycle all day long.
Anyways, I think what daylen meant to convey was that it is more difficult to determine or detect E vs I in written communication (thus your conjecture that Riggerjack is more extroverted than me- you just have to take our word(s) that this is not the case, although it is very likely that he is less shy IRL than me), so should be put aside given format of interaction in this group. OTOH, it is fairly easy to detect or determine F vs T in written communication, and there are a good number of INFJs participating in this group (GandK, IlliniDave, BRUTE...), so perhaps that is another dimension that could be explored.
Back to original topic. My biggest area of handicap is the fact that I am 98%N with only 2% S, but my P is strong enough that although I might make use of the term "strategy", I must admit I don't really get it. Also, some might say that P stands for Procrastination, but, for instance, the tendency or ability to hold all possibilities and judgment open until the last possible minute is what gives the ENTP the super-power of being the type who can best determine if/when another person is lying. Unfortunately, when this super-power is combined with the ENTP's super-weakness of not being able to keep her mouth shut, this often results in the sort of natural consequences often subsequent to making bold announcements such as "The Emperor is Wearing No Clothes!" Thus, the relatively low representation of the ENTP in the human population pool.
@unemployable There are two major reasons for this.
1. MBTI model achieves a good balance of complexity. The Big-5 model adds neuroticism which is basically an error term.
2. MBTI has its own modular language that can be used to efficiently talk about it. The iNFp and the EsTj met a group of xSFP's ...
@classical_liberal Perhaps your right that the extroversion dimension has an effect. I am an ambivert so it is hard to tell, but I think your deductions are mostly right. I do think that maybe the INTP and ENTP should be switched in your model? Reason being that ENTP's lead with Ne which makes conceptual connections and INTP leads with Ti which analyzes correctness. xNTP's likely start a disproportionate number of threads after normalizing for population sizes. An INTP post is likely to be more thought out than an ENTP post.
I think that would be a very good topic too. Would you describe yourself as a person who is generally focused and alert to his surroundings in the moment? Can you perform tasks such as driving a car very quickly through traffic with ease?
The only exercise I know of to develop S is making putting your hands together to make a small view box, and then examining what is actually around you through that perspective. Maybe using a timer to overcome initial inertia to getting started on tasks is also S exercise? I guess I'm not really sure about which abilities I am lacking are S traits or J traits. I'm very balanced in E/I so little problem there, and I am moderate in my T and female, so I at least know what is going on there.
Funny! I'm just annoyed because this thread isn't discussing S versus N, as I'm an ISTJ.
Feel free to hijack my thread with your analysis! I don't mind.
My take is that S-dominate folks keep us grounded in reality and help fill in the details of implementation. F-dominate folks help add perspective that is less offensive and more inviting to newcomers. We all have a part to play.
@7 - Hey Big Sis. I'd suggest looking into the full personality stack and applying the car-model (as rejected by self-respecting psychology graduates) keeping in mind that it's all about preferences and not absolute strengths.
With N at 98% preference, it means that S preference is at 2% and that's your auxiliary function which means it is practically subconscious. (My N/S preferences are similarly skewed or screwed.) The tertiary function is the 3-year old in the car model. This means it should be watched closely, particularly in stress situations, and brought out only in positive situations, but not be allowed to take over the vehicle. Si is memory, specifically anecdotal memory.
Someone with a primary Si (ISF*-people) would drive with it and thus be good at structures and step-wise procedures---because that's what the driver would mainly focus on and enjoy their flowstate in.
Roughly speaking for ENTP: Ne sees pattern, Ti develops it into a scheme, Fe relates the scheme to other people, and Si provides material for the explanation in the form of personal anecdotes or experiments. (The most edutaining youtubers are likely ENTPs, especially where safety is NOT the #1 concern)
Compare e.g. to INTJ: Ni imagines theory (or scheme), Te explains it logically, Fi relates theory to some internal sense of morality, and Se turns the explanation and theory-interest into something personally practical.
I find Ni and Fi to be the most difficult functions to understand. I believe this is mostly due to their subjectivity. Si and Ti by comparison both have relatively straight forward purpose (relate to past experience and analyze consistency), and so the development of these abilities appears to be more linear than that of Ni and Fi.
Ni and Fi seem to be disorganized from my perspective. To those of you that rely on these functions, do you have a sense of direction when using them? How aware are you of the algorithms that comprise these functions? Is this awareness something you develop overtime by reflecting on how they have operated in the past?
@daylen - I'd say that depends on which place they occupy in the stack. A function probably operates differently as a driver where it defines the identity/self-image of the person than as a 3-year old when it defines their major weakness.
How does Ni work as a primary function? So maybe imagine that for the Ni-primary, everything they know, see and hear about exists as some point in a space, maybe like the stars you can see in the night-sky. By "everything you know", I mean various facts, observations, experiences, soundbites, ... each of these is a star with a position. You start out with a few stars ... but with more experience, you see more and more stars.
The Ni super-power is the ability to "draw constellations" automagically. That's the ability to see patterns and connections in those stars. We call these patterns laws and theories if we're T and relations and group-dynamics if we're F. A more experienced Ni will begin to see patterns in the patterns. Those recognized patterns of patterns are called latticework. An Ni, age 25, will already command many such patterns. One that's very used is the ability to think in conditional probabilities. If this, then that, and then that, but if not that, then this ... The thought process is one of a pattern that leads to next pattern which leads to the next. It's almost like a kind of parallel processing of individual configurations.
Try to imagine how useful this is for diplomacy (F) or contingency-strategy (T).
There's no real sense of direction or director just like there's no real sense of direction/director on a photograph. All that is seen/"knowledged" is seen/"knowledged" simultaneously. Insofar that the data AND the patterns have been established in a disciplined manner either by training (hello physics) or experience (hello gray hairs), the automagic patterns tend to conform to reality. This makes Ni capable of large leaps of insight that tend to be annoyingly [to others] correct in retrospect.
What's annoying to your typical Ni is the curse of the relative inferior ability to relate those insight to others in advance [before they suffer sensing them].
Ni's spend a lot of time watching other people's lives as slow train wrecks in motion.
Also worth pointing out that this is not executed by some homunculus (like the T function typically acts like whether it's E or I or primary or secondary)... rather it just happens intuitively---the best Ni insights appear in the bathroom or after sleeping on it... not in an open-space 9--5 office configuration. You can't tell me to sit down and have great ideas. Rather, data and concerns must be uploaded. Then wait a few days, and something will pop up ... usually while in the bathroom. IF there are no external demands, the process still happens. Here's one set of patterns. Here's another. Here's a meta-pattern for the probability outcomes. Si will argue that "Something can't happen because it's never been experienced before and can therefore be ignored for 'common sense' reasons"; Ni will argue that "Something could happen because it occupies 7% of the outcome space of all the intuited simulations and should therefore be part of the strategy."
Now at this point, it's still all in the head. I know what's going to happen and I know the probabilities fairly accurately. How it's fleshed out for the public depends on either Fe or Te. That requires a serious mental effort in particular because Ni keeps providing alternative solutions. But as an interesting anecdote, perhaps, one of my math professors was of the opinion that I could be a better mathematician if only I could become more rigorous, i.e. also proving/covering all the exceptions to the theorem. However, it didn't naturally occur to me why anyone would expend such effort on cases that never apply in practice simply for the sake of internal completeness (Ti) so I didn't and don't. Ti is of course what dominates INTPs and is exactly the function that would take care of such rigor.
Methinks, for INTJs the co-drivers do most of the work while Ni is living the life of Riley(*). I'm rarely in flow if I actually want to be productive (get ideas on paper) and not just engage in mental masturbation.
(*) Noting that the beast still needs to be fed. This is by no means a free ride. Ni is frustrating and exasperating. Imagine your imaginary night-sky being rotated and rotated to see if there's some pattern that makes more sense, over and over.
Fun observation: ESTP has Ni as its 3-year old and is therefore often the INTJ's nemesis as the same Ni function clashes between its most developed state and its least developed (for an example, see the forum climate change feuds between myself and a certain ESTP). With Ni at the auxiliary level, there are simply not enough verified constellations and so that puts the emphasis on whatever star is the favorite or brightest quickly losing patience when things go deeper. Yay shiny star!
Anyway, your explanation makes sense. I definitely want to explore how the maturity of the functions influence usage. I bet there are some interesting patterns in the evolution of each cognitive function.
Thanks for the link! Lightbulb moment. I haven't been making any progress because I believed that I was engaging in introverted thinking if I was alone in the house working my way through a stack of new books. Obviously, that is really just another form of extroverted intuition AKA "exploring." Introverted thinking AKA "accuracy" requires asking the question "Is this sensible?" Also, pretty obvious that extroverted feeling AKA "harmony" is my defense position, because I often have the thought "It doesn't matter what I do as long as everybody is happy." It is also interesting/true that I often explain my "schemes" through the use of personal anecdote even though I rarely think about the past. I just grab out the anecdotes kind of like I grab out spices from a rack when I am cooking. One time my INFP sister remarked that she assumed that I often made use of personal anecdote because I was trying to be nice by not directly referring to my audience. I had no clue what she meant by that. Now I get it. I think the real largely unconscious reason I frequently grab anecdotes when attempting explanation is that I believe that most other people understand anecdotes better than other more abstract models.
Okay, here goes nothing. Working on the Ti co-pilot.
Polyamory? Is this sensible?
Robots in the garden? Is this sensible?
Enrolling in computer boot-camp at the age of 53? Is this sensible?
Avoiding teaching kindergarten because my lungs are in bad shape. Is this sensible?
This is rather difficult for me. I wonder whether asking "Is this sensible?" amounts to the same thing as asking "Is this in my self-aware self-interest?"
@jacob I have another question about your mental abilities. How has your spacial intelligence evolved overtime? I think I remember reading a comment from you previously that your physics training helped you to gain visual intuition.
Can you visualize complex 3D structures in your environment and imagine them changing or interacting with other objects? I am wondering if this is more of an Ne thing, because I have been able to do this for as long as I can remember. This ability makes computing integrals a breeze since I can just see the areas without thinking. I remember when I was a kid I would always imagine that the building collapsed in on itself, or that I was flying in the sky looking down at everything. Can anyone else do this easily?
@7 - As for the last question ... shouldn't those two [questions] have the same answer? At least in the Socratic sense ...
@daylen - Not much. I'm about average in terms of playing tetris and rotating random 3D stuff. I think 3D manipulation falls under Se. I'm not good at that though it does excite my "3 year old" self. I've played/enjoyed a lot of flight-sims and I handle myself well with HOTAS I seriously considered joining the air force at one point (age 15) before learning about the average drop-out rate. Probably a good thing I didn't because eventually I would have gotten shot down by some *STP ;-P
By visual intuition, I refer more to the fact that for complex structures, it's easier [for Ni] to draw or visualize them than it is to write or narrate them. By extension, it's also easier to manipulate visuals than stories. Putting that whole logos thing into words is not the best Ni solution. Nor are equations---that's a Ti thing. Ni likes drawing stick figure things.
When I develop ideas it usually involves figuring out some solid diagram (worth 10 pictures, each worth 1000 words, so 10000 words per diagram, literally) for an idea, and then turning it into words via Te. Thus, One diagram = One blog post. Ten diagrams + One super-diagram = One book.
Now I think my analysis is just too detailed for the model since my Ne > Se > Si.
Overall life experience must have an effect on ordering. I think this is a case where environmental factors must be considered. I grew up in an environment where sports were the thing to do and if you didn't do them you were a loser, so naturally I forced myself to participate and worked hard attempting to keep up with my step-brother who was a natural athlete. Then my mom and step-dad divorced, and I resorted to video games.
@jacob: True. Might be easier if I come up with a way to think about it in terms of autopoiesis and cognition. The word sensible connotes "common sense" which smacks of Si.
@daylen: What Jacob said. I definitely do not have that super ability, but I know a male engineer ENTP with an IQ over 160 and I bet he can do that too. All ENTPs are inventive, but not all ENTPS are inventors. I was planning on getting help from my engineer friends if I made a garden robot. I have to use my words when I am doing math. Luckily, I can talk very quickly to myself, especially if move my hands around while I am thinking. It's possible that I could train myself to count cards at a casino, but probably that isn't a sensible plan to achieve FI.
It's possible that I could train myself to count cards at a casino, but probably that isn't a sensible plan to achieve FI.
I can see it now. You, your kids, and I could play the "Mom is just taking us to the casino for our first time as a family vacation" card when they get suspicious.
I seriously considered joining the air force at one point (age 15) before learning about the average drop-out rate. Probably a good thing I didn't because eventually I would have gotten shot down by some *STP ;-P