The INTJ Paradox...

[ragavpayne]

Hello,
The following is just a train of thoughts that I had. At first, it all seemed like a big paradox…but I came up with a solution to settle it. The train of thoughts/solution for it may or may not be factually correct, logically consistent or exhaustive in view. Those that may find this issue intriguing can comment/improvise/dismiss stating reasons.

The mutually paradoxical statements:-

• Most INTJs are personal thinkers and base their opinions, ideas and theories on first hand experiences and so, tend to be quite unique in their individual perspectives.
• INTJs have large number of very specific similarities among themselves; such as building their own personal consistent systems of logic and arriving at conclusions based on them, their general emotional make up etc. (you can read the text in these links if you are genuinely an INTJ and are willing to know how similar you are to the others of our type - To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). The similarities of our traits and methods, in fact, overwhelm our differences. So, considering the fact that we have consistent ways of thinking and processing facts, almost all INTJs must think similarly and arrive at the same conclusions.

If the first statement is true, then it would mean that INTJs think differently and agreement in views held by different INTJs would have nothing more than a chance. Contrarily, if the second one is true, it would contradict the statement that INTJs are individually unique! So, obviously, the case is either that some of the pieces of information that act as basis for the statements are invalid or that the interpreted of the facts is inaccurate. The question is “what is wrong?”


Personally, I have come up with the following solution:-

INTJs are indeed very similar in their approach and are very much consistent in their model-building. But, the key issue that contributes to the individual uniqueness of the INTJ is that each one munches on varying types of first hand experiences and information. But, still, the objective method one employs must ensure that one INTJ will never ever disagree with another INTJ on any issue. If ever an INTJ argues with another INTJ, it would be because of any of the following cases:-

• Either or both of the INTJs’ personal logical system are inconsistent.
• If both their systems of logic are consistent, then the information that one has let his/her logic system to input is inconsistent with that of the other. (This can arise due to faulty observation; which we shall ignore) or non-exhaustive nature of the information that either one of them has used to arrive at their respective arguments)
• There can be more than one consistent system of logic (i.e. the systems of logic employed by the arguing INTJs would be logical, yet differ from each other).

These three possibilities make the following three inferences respectively:-

• INTJs aren’t necessarily perfectly consistent all the times.
• Non-exhaustive Information can form conclusions that may be contradictory to what exhaustive information would offer (assuming that we’re using a consistent system of logic to process the information).
• This is the more impressive one. This would essentially mean that all the logic systems don’t essentially share the same base (In fact, if you analyze deep enough, you’ll discover that logic doesn’t have any base at all! It’s just the most optimum method to arrive at a strategy that would let us do what we want).

Perhaps, our uniqueness arises out of that slim amount of difference that exists between the individuals we are and the surroundings that make us. For instance, our individual IQs (or rather our innate ability to recognize patterns, see distinctions etc), the societies we live in, the implicit assumptions that they induce in us, our self-esteem, our physical appearance and our value to it etc.

We may be unique in our own respects…but when it comes to strong disagreement on the subject matter of a discussion, the chances must be very slim (given our adaptability and consistency). So, if we do strongly disagree with each other, it would invalidate this conclusion and I’d like to know why. On the other hand, if this conclusion is right, it would mean that a group of INTJs can think parallel and communicate their thought process to make an individual!

Anyway, if our uniqueness is indeed common and we think alike, then it would only mean that one INTJ is as close to truth as another one is. And if we are the most insightful of all other human types, then we’re the closest group of individuals to the truth. The word that needs to be stressed here is “group”.

The larger picture of this issue involves the philosophy of the limits of human understanding. Most humans have the capacity to understand each other (which is evident just by the fact that human individuals have similar objects in mind to attribute similar words to) just because of the physical similarities of the individual brains. The similarities in the brains allow inter-connections communicability. So, in a way, this INTJ oriented paradox can indeed be extrapolated to the entire mankind.

The questions whose answers are capable of being impressive are:-
If two INTJs are locked in separate rooms and provided with least sensory input and nothing more than just the basic physical necessities, how much would they be able to relate each other’s experience in their respective solitude once they’re allowed to communicate afterwards? Let us assume that the possible answer to this question is at the end of the extremes. Suppose the INTJs have almost identical experiences and they are very much able to relate to each others’ experiences. This would mean that they have very little physical differences in their brains. On the other hand, if they had very dissimilar experiences, it would mean that they are alike in the contemplation that involves independent observing…but ultimately unique in things that involve personal involvement. Perhaps there may be other possibilities; but their effect would lie between these two extremes.

Just a train of thoughts that was potent enough to make me think this far and deliver an analysis that deserved small-time publication. I just wanted to know if anyone else had similar thoughts about INTJ or has ever had this type of analysis done for them by their brains. I wrote this a couple of days ago. Now, when I read this, I can only laugh.

Regards.

[The Many]

All INTJs don't necessarily think the same way. This typing business is, as I have mentioned elsewhere too, quite silly. Some would be less intuitive/associating less than others, some (including me) would think in ways involving both "introverted thinking" and "extraverted thinking", some would perhaps see some details that some others did not see, etc, etc, etc. The only thing the "INTJ" label says is that we are quite similar, but far from as similar as many would think. So yes, of course different INTJs would arrive at different conclusions.

On a somewhat (un)related side note, this post somewhat reminds me of the old statement that essentially says that "truth is the sum of all possible experiences", which is quite true. The problem is that, given us being human beings, we should (or at least, could) still fully comprehend all our perceptions which I'm inclined to say is not the case.

[Doppelbock]

FYI, the official version of the INTJ handbook (renamed "The Compleat Idiot's Guide to the INTJ") is at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The link you provide to my geocities page was an early draft.

As far as your paradox: I would say we all think the same to a certain degree, but have different experiences and values and worldviews that are inputs to those similar thought processes, leading us to different conclusions.

DB

[Sylvanus]

As far as your paradox: I would say we all think the same to a certain degree, but have different experiences and values and worldviews that are inputs to those similar thought processes, leading us to different conclusions.

DB

I think that differences between each other cause us to have different experiences and values, despite similar inputs. These values act as a BS filter, and tell us what we will believe as true or false. Even if our brains or the input were nearly identical, the 'butterfly effect' (or chaos theory) would cause different people to have vastly different opinions given enough time.

[Max T]

I think that some of this 'INTJ similar thinking' is to an extent just a mirage- we only give an appearance of logic.
An ability to accept other forum member's superior conclusions + repeated forum anecdotes of how we're more rational than the outside world = INTJs are only seemingly closer to the truth.

In absolute terms we could be far from the truth. But our sense of rationality manifests itself as we're often drawn to comfort zones that value logic (certain academia, IT, engineering). Just make sure we don't stray out of that comfort zone and into a field renowned for irrationality or with many confounding variables and still assume immunity from irrationality.


Adding a conflicting paradox. The more a system is influenced by human emotion, the greater the importance of deriving the truth based on human emotion and not on clinical logic. Sometimes the only truth that matters is that which exists in the minds of [irrational] others.

Applying that paradox to this forum, it is partly influenced by collective INTJ emotion (INTJ emotion? yes, think 'we don't know what we don't know'), so the 'truth' lies in our group psyche which feels better than the common mindsets in society, which is where the real truth lies in some aspects of life.

[Sunnyoneshine]

Interestingly enough if the INTJ was under stress, their negative SFP personality could produce vastly different points of view. It would be interesting to run a controlled experiment.

[Max T]

Interestingly enough if the INTJ was under stress, their negative SFP personality could produce vastly different points of view. It would be interesting to run a controlled experiment.

Perhaps we see temporary stress when two INTJs occasionally argue on this forum.

To support your thinking, on the occasion arguments do arise, we kind of see the two INTJs shift between becoming personal and aggressive behaviour (negative SFP?) and calm rationality.
Perhaps not quite your "stress... produce vastly different points of view" but more a sustaining of different points of view, as they become entrenched.

[axiomtangent]

I may be oversimplifying this, but I believe the differences that may appear in our logic systems may be the result of the limited knowledge or experience of one individual when compared to another.

For instance, I have a lot of "real world" knowledge, meaning I've been lots of places and experienced lots of things. But I've very little academic training in what some consider essential disciplines needed to draw accurate logical conclusions, such as physics, chemistry, and higher math.

So, my logic may seem to the more educated individual as crude and uninformed, unless it is in a sphere that requires first hand experience where I have a wealth of data to draw conclusions from.

[systemsguy]

I think it a bit naïve to think that a certain type of personality would develop the same or similar logic systems among its members. This could be due to mirror-imaging: thinking that others have the same experiences that we have, or even similar experiences that we have. We may have a particular tendency to use knowledge in a similar fashion, but to build the same internal knowledge systems is a stretch because of the infinite variety and variability of human experience.

Also, to assume that if two logic systems are inconsistent, then one must be false is another stretch, as I see it. Using two differing sets of inputs can produce a wide variety of logic systems, and each system can be perfectly consistent with its own set of data inputs. Perhaps the two people would have very similar systems for the same or similar data input, but even then, I would say this is a stretch also. There are many systematic approaches to similar problems and data input, each of which can be chosen by either person, and each choice can be completely different. Not to say that the INTJ approach to system building would not be similar and contain repeated themes as a common personality between two people.





systemsguy added to this post, 7 minutes and 57 seconds later...

Another short note…

Since our type tends to want to “close” out a problem, we might make the mistake that our closure is the final word on the topic, when, in fact, closure should be taken as our personal closure, with the possibility that another’s closure might be perfectly consistent with their own experiences and logic system.