[Chameleon]

Originally Posted by Smacknrat To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ok. Fair enough. I missed the personal message that struck you the first time. We can sit and dissect the exact reaction to the phrasing in terms of the mental process (from an INTP perspective) and that might be a great deal more insightful... For example, even your comments are an additive nature of Ti (whereas Te is subtractive). I like to look at the INTJ functions as they are experienced by an INTP and that explains a lot of my negative reaction (as of the last 3 years) to them. ---------- Post added 06-29-2012 at 11:12 PM ---------- Clarification in hopes that future readers (that have been reading this thread and other threads involving Ti) understand and keep in mind that Ti isn't JUST (and only) a logical trait. I run into this mistake a lot (from INTP analysis) and then a poor unsuspecting INFJ gets pounced on for saying something in disagreement... I'd love to do a post-analysis (and simulation) on that, too. =) To rephrase, you can't understand, because I've been looking at Ti all over the place and dissecting some instances. I've been doing this 20 times a day, and every day, and almost no-one and almost nothing can persuade me... You just agreed that was an admirable trait a moment ago.

I understand now. Thank you. It is hard for us to remember there are shallows when we are content in the deep (not an insult).

[Smacknrat]

	Originally Posted by Chameleon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I understand now. Thank you. It is hard for us to remember there are shallows when we are content in the deep (not an insult).

Point taken!

[shytiger]

Originally Posted by Indubitably To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

INTPs have almost the opposite approach, they are trying to tell you absolutely everything they know about the subject of discussion all at once. They essentially want their ideas to be independent of context all together, so they try to cram as much information into the statement as they possibly can without saying any more or less that they actually know to be true. In other words, they want to make their "specific meaning density" as high as possible. That is the advantage of abstracting the statement most independent of context; it is a very parsimonious means of communication. In other words, an INTJ's statements are very sparse, decisive, and flexible, but lack "versatility" (which is to say that they are poor candidates for robust generalization) until a great deal of energy has been invested in their extension to other contexts, where as an INTP's statements are very terse, versatile, and precise, but lack clarity of decision until a great deal of energy has been invested in their refinement.

This sounds exhausting. It also explains a lot of the mathematics papers I read---no examples. At least to me, if somebody makes very general statements, it makes me think they don't know what they're talking about. In some sense, INTPs don't know what they're talking about from the INTJ perspective because INTJs want to know how the INTP's general theory or idea applies to a particular case. The INTP frequently doesn't know. That isn't to say that the INTP doesn't understand his or her theory very well. The INTP just doesn't really care about this or that particular case because the general theory explains everything already---at least from the INTP's point of view. From the INTJ's point of view, on the other hand, the general theory is useless compared to the collection of specific applications of it, so to understand something, for an INTJ, is to understand how a general theory applies to a variety of useful cases. Thus, when an INTJ explains something, they are very concerned that the information be directly usable in a particular context.

[thod]

Suppose that when you looked out at the world you did not see details. Instead your inputs consisted only of the pattens those details made. Disagreement would arise when, despite having the same details, two people see different patterns. Perhaps one of them is missing a pattern from his repertoire or perhaps they have a different name for it.

[Smacknrat]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Suppose that when you looked out at the world you did not see details. Instead your inputs consisted only of the pattens those details made. Disagreement would arise when, despite having the same details, two people see different patterns. Perhaps one of them is missing a pattern from his repertoire or perhaps they have a different name for it.

This is excellent! But keep in mind that while you described N perfectly, breaking it down into archetypes further explains the conflict between the INTJ Ni and the place the Ni takes as a critic in an INTP! (I think you're taking N here?)

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by scorpiomover To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I never mentioned that. READ WHAT I WROTE:Either you admit your weaknesses, or you don't. Proof is in the pudding, TP. If you wish to prove you can and do admit weaknesses of INTJs, then list 3 things right now, that are real weaknesses. Or, don't, and continue to be regarded as someone who refuses to admit weaknesses, which is what I wrote about.

If you wish to prove you can and do admit weaknesses of INTPs, then list 3 things right now, that are real weaknesses.

I don't care about how I am viewed, but I am annoyed that you suggest or imply you can do it. I other words, if I can admit them or if I can't, I don't see why it has to be to you. Nor do am I honestly interested in your reply with your weaknesses - the request was rhetorical. Given time if some courage is there and you have something like this to gain from it I don't really doubt that you can.

I have told others in the past of my weaknesses. Do I expect you to believe me? The answer to that isn't something I care for, and the consequences of if you don't is something I am confident I can deal with.

Originally Posted by leslissocool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's what comes across as not admitting your weaknesses, this opinion that you don't have to share them. If you don't share what you think are your weaknesses, you are not admitting them to others and when you get called on it. You believe you don't have to say anything about that, INTP's share them to others so that they can be analyzed, many times to find a way to compensate them. At least I do that personally, I share my insecurities to friends because I don't know weather they can see them or not because emotions might cloud my judgement, and gather information from their point of view. That's the reason I do so.

Simply that one who hasn't honestly shared weaknesses cannot demand that it is right for others to do so. See the Scorpiomover quote I have in this post for more or less what I was talking about.

	Originally Posted by leslissocool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What I personally see in my INTJ friend is this need to appear as something they are not (to look smarter, look like they make more money or they are cultured) and the inability to accept anything that does not make him look like such.

I think I do that too in some areas, such as education. But on the other hand, I am what I claim to be - the claims I make are the roads I am on, its just although I am that person I make the effort for appearance and make a point to. Which can come across as awkward.

If that makes sense.

	Originally Posted by leslissocool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	His inability to look at things from outside his comfort level (specially in social situations) and not understanding why everyone doesn't abide by such perspective.

I have that too, to an extent. Nor did it make sense for the longest time why people didn't "abide by such a perspective".

But once you know the reason for the difference, what makes you think it is a weakness you are describing rather than something that has both great strengths and weaknesses, which has a nature you haven't touched upon yet?

	Originally Posted by leslissocool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As to you not believing what INTP's claim as their weakness, who are you to judge what one perceive as weakness?

I am one who knows not all that is said is true. That is sufficient for me and for others.

So you see, I don't need to judge what one percieves as weakness. There are other elements that still shut others down.

Like rational discussion and questions, upon which fragile illusions shatter.

If something stands or breaks isn't up to me. I just break the low quality stuff, and sometimes I enjoy it. The quality in this context is perhaps the ability to endure more than it was prepared for, as can be reasonably expected.

As to if I was to judge it, to say that a weakness cannot be seen as weakness... I don't see a situation where it would be in my interests to do so. But I can point out when a weakness doesn't apply to a situation or applies to another situation when it suits me, in order to shut down arguments rather than perceptions.

For example, if a sob story ignores important details, as they usually do, I don't need to tell people what they can perceieve. But I can warn them that I am doing to shut down arguments when it suits me. For giggles. I don't even need to suggest methods or expect you believe me.

As to sob stories, if a story is written to elicit sympathy rather than admit weakness, it doesn't matter if it holds a grain of truth. It's a sob story. Forget judging if the weakness is true or false in this matter - leave it for the question of truth of falsehood but not if something is a sob story or not. It can be both true and a sob story. It can be a sob story with little value to truth.

	Originally Posted by leslissocool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What exactly do you entail as a weakness?

Weakness is a characteristic that has consequence within a context. If the context or consequence is an illusion, the weakness is insufficient. How is that personal? It is merely a platform.

The weakness can be a strength in another context. But if within one context it is a detriment, it is a weakness.

	Originally Posted by leslissocool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What would make something a weakness in this personal set of beliefs you abide on, that you think as common sense or a definite standard to determine what a weakness is?

Personal set of beliefs? What do you mean? Even if the context for the weakness is laughable in my opinion, it should be fine in terms of something that someone may genuinely think is important.

But if its not genuine, its really more a matter of anothers imposed deception of beliefs.

What a weakness is is determined by examination of the context. With a context that isn't genuine or is misreprented, it fails the one criteria.

The one criteria is honesty and a rational mind. Without honesty, a weakness is just as easily a feign or distraction when in capable hands. Without the rational mind, a mistake is less able to be revealed for what it is.

- - -

It basically boils down to don't sell sob stories as weaknesses and then say INTJs haven't contributed as much as you have as some sort of moral high ground. If one wants sympathy and moral high ground and to get us to talk about our weaknesses and explain them, we still don't want to be used as tools. Deal with it. If the situation is something like I described you have no moral high ground in our eyes, and even if you had moral high ground so what? I delight in not explaining things to INTPs, like not explaining INTJ weaknesses. If I could explain it to all the other types in such a way that INTPs wouldn't eventually find out, it may be that I would have done it for giggles. Some character isn't rewarded if poor, and to some knowledge is a reward or treasure. Simple - a person who has demonstrated adequate character I wouldn't bother taking issue with and may explain away if there was a meaningful need without too much of a care about withholding any knowledge.

Thats my only real point on this issue at the moment.

As to INTJ weaknesses, I think they would require explanation so they aren't misunderstood - not for the betterment of others' perception of INTJs, but just because they require it. (Like explaining how a bike works to a world that uses horses - not a moral issue, but an issue of time and investment.) Explanation I have no inclination to waste effort for some INTPs over. (Nor even mention to anyone now that INTPs would have a possible access to said knowledge once given, unless secrecy was promised by someone I trusted with it.)

Would you in my shoes?

[Async]

Ok, here is what I consider as my biggest weakness: Impatience.

Once I've made a personal decision, I wanted to start the first step NOW!. Often, I made decisions after long, thoughtful considerations in isolation. My decisions may be based on intuitions, where not every steps have been worked out, but I trusted my plans to be flexible and I recognized that course changes may be necessary.

Others who were not privy to the deliberation were often caught off-guard and needed time to adjust. Others also may not have the same pace of deliberations as mine because they need to look at 20 other options (I am looking at you lot, INTPs) -- no condescending here, just stating the obvious (which has been hashed out numerous times on this forum).

In conversing with others, I am impatient with long-winded stories. At work, I can't stand it in meetings when people meander through different options, permutations and combinations when the optimal path is so obvious.

Obviously, this doesn't not win me Miss Congeniality prize anywhere (sarcasm here). Prize or not, I do recognize that not having consensus impede my ability to get to the goal.

So, INTJs, INTPs, spin as you may, I do see this as a weakness.

[Merle]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't ever try to micro-manage an INTP of quality or place them in time-sensitive positions. You nullify their effectiveness through erosion of their confidence level, stress at deadlines and invasiveness where their autonomy needs will throw up a wall.

Totally agree about the micro-managing... but the deadlines, hmmmn. I NEED deadlines. I can only produce if I have a deadline (and it is coming up fast!), otherwise I just let things stew in my head indefinitely. A significantly too short time-frame will be a problem, and then, yes, I will get stressed but a clear (and clearly enforced) end-point is essential for me to do any work that others can actually see and use.

[thod]

	At work, I can't stand it in meetings when people meander through different options, permutations and combinations when the optimal path is so obvious.

The purpose of a meeting is to examine the different options. I would find numerous problems with your obvious path that you had never thought of. Hasty decisions are poor decisions.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The purpose of a meeting is to examine the different options.

I don't think that is the case.

The purpose of meetings seem to be communication and cooperation.
Without those ingredients examining different options can generate into selfishness and politics.

A brainstorm session is to examine the different options.

A meeting needs not be a brainstorm session.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The purpose of a meeting is to examine the different options.

Um, no. Meetings are generally for group communications and feedback. You're talking about brainstorming, which is a very specific kind of meeting. Usually, "examine the different options" involves people preparing for the meeting in advance, either coming up with ideas/options or evaluating any of several options that have already been proposed (e.g., via email). It's one thing to have 2-3 people scribbling on a whiteboard to collaborate on ideas, but it's quite another to have a meeting with 12 or more people trying to brainstorm, when only one person can draw or speak at a time.

	I would find numerous problems with your obvious path that you had never thought of. Hasty decisions are poor decisions.

What makes you think the decisions are necessarily hasty, just because they weren't analyzed in the manner you would have analyzed them? Decisions made by committee tend to be just as poor, if not more so, than those made in "haste."

That said, I'm sure you could find many issues with respect to the obvious path, most of which hadn't been considered, but how do you weigh and present those issues? Is it just a technical issue that can be resolved with time and effort? Is it a lack of specificity about key components of a plan? Is it a real roadblock that makes the plan a nonstarter?

Most technical issues can only be brought to light and resolved after deciding on an overall plan and course of action - to bring up all possible technical issues for every plan would take a very long time (analysis paralysis). If some element isn't specific enough, that doesn't mean you've found a problem, but are blocked from analyzing whether or not it will really work. Most times, that level of specificity can't be reached until other things have been decided concretely. It is the real roadblocks that need to be heard in a (non-brainstorming) meeting, the items which would require major effort to get around, or even make the project prove to be not worth the cost.

The roadblocks and suggestions on how to get around roadblocks are the productive discussions in meetings, not just finding the flaws in everyone else's ideas. That INTPs find such flaws with ease is indeed helpful, but they tend to leave out the details that others need to evaluate them (is the technical flaw an easy fix or a hard fix or what?).

Interestingly, I've found that asking, "Well, if *you* had to suggest a fix [or solution or what have you], given what you know right now, what would it be?" often prompts the details I find missing from the typical INTP's explanation.

[thod]

It may be the best plan, but its sponsor is one my opponents. If it goes ahead he will get credit and move ahead of me. I'm your boss, you do what I say. I say find reasons to scuttle it. That's your job.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Merle To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Totally agree about the micro-managing... but the deadlines, hmmmn. I NEED deadlines. I can only produce if I have a deadline (and it is coming up fast!), otherwise I just let things stew in my head indefinitely. A significantly too short time-frame will be a problem, and then, yes, I will get stressed but a clear (and clearly enforced) end-point is essential for me to do any work that others can actually see and use.

Don't disagree with having some form of deadline but what time sensitive means, is what INTPs would call the bolded. Imagine an INTP with 10 deadlines every day which isn't unusual in my industry since most jobs are intensely time sensitive. INTPs would fray at the seams.

[Tactical Panda]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It may be the best plan, but its sponsor is one my opponents. If it goes ahead he will get credit and move ahead of me. I'm your boss, you do what I say. I say find reasons to scuttle it. That's your job.

A job isn't simply doing what a boss says.

A job is doing what you agreed to do as per professional contract within a professional capacity.

If part of the job is to provide sound professional advice as not to be negligent, deal with it. Even bosses can be corrected. If they have the final say, fine, but they carry the responsibility which can be a cost.

A boss who demonstrates stupidity, irresponsibility or selfishess faces consequences so long as the talented professionals under them are free people and not slaves, given an adequate economy and flexible staff abilities.

[Indubitably]

Originally Posted by shytiger To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This sounds exhausting. It also explains a lot of the mathematics papers I read---no examples. At least to me, if somebody makes very general statements, it makes me think they don't know what they're talking about. In some sense, INTPs don't know what they're talking about from the INTJ perspective because INTJs want to know how the INTP's general theory or idea applies to a particular case. The INTP frequently doesn't know. That isn't to say that the INTP doesn't understand his or her theory very well. The INTP just doesn't really care about this or that particular case because the general theory explains everything already---at least from the INTP's point of view. From the INTJ's point of view, on the other hand, the general theory is useless compared to the collection of specific applications of it, so to understand something, for an INTJ, is to understand how a general theory applies to a variety of useful cases. Thus, when an INTJ explains something, they are very concerned that the information be directly usable in a particular context.

In fact, it often is quite exhausting, and if what Nardi has been saying about Ne is any indication, there is good reason to feel fatigued. Ne is apparently an extremely expensive cognitive strategy for your brain to run, and Ti's primary job seems to be weaving together all the frayed ends left in the wake of Ne's shotgun un-context cannon of doominess (which quite frankly, does seem to do a pretty damn good job of leaving a metric shit tonne of cross-contextual mess to clean up after). Basically, Ne is the nuclear carpet bomb run of mental gymnastics, where as Ni and Si are the sniper rifles. I suppose if you are going dump all that fuel into the process you had better be getting a lot of contextual mileage out of it; if you can't tie the idea back into pretty much everything you know, you're just that cave man who needs to eat more than the other cavemen when ever he wants to think clearly, and nature will have none of that shit on her watch.

[obnoxious]

The method in a Ti + Ne approach is to search for identifiable relationships and create reasons for them, to then go out and find relationships that support your supposings... and on that goes with any relationship the NTP finds interesting enough (and given the creativity and perceptiveness of Ti, the NTP can and will create interesting reasons for the majority of them).*Through life he builds a Si storehouse of these relationship explanations which are placed in a created categorization system, and in that Si way a lot of things inspire reference to these in the NTP day to day, allowing one to build off them and brainstorm for identifiable relationships with others one is with at the time (or often enough on one's own)

Regardless of what the specific biochemical causes are for some brains to have genetic preference/priority toward external perception and broader category consideration, the unconscious method to the madness is as I described.*

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The purpose of a meeting is to examine the different options.

I agree with Jndiii on this. A meeting is to collect in a group, for some reason. A social meeting is often simply to socially connect, and spend time together. A business meeting is often to keep everyone in the know, so that what each person is doing, works together with what everyone else is doing. What you are describing, is as Jndiii pointed out, brainstorming.

That being said, many meetings are about brainstorming. The purpose of brainstorming is to come up with lots of potential options, to select one that works. That would only be useful, if one doesn't have a plan, or one's plan is going bad, and one can't see any other plans at the moment. However, one can brainstorm with oneself. So really brainstorming meetings are when the boss's plans have not worked, and he can see no other way to proceed. Then he brainstorms with others, so that the group will produce a plan as a team.

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hasty decisions are poor decisions.

Depends on the situation. Many times, one MUST act, and quickly, because of outside pressures, and ANY action is better than no action.

A good example of this, was when UK government scientists declared that ingestion of meat from British cows with BSE, had caused CJD in humans. Such a situation was dynamite. It was bound to terrify most people, and it did. People were so terrified, that they needed to see that the British were taking the matter seriously, and were going to sort it. But it was so scary to people, that they needed a sign, any sign, that the British were doing SOMETHING. It could have been something totally useless. But the rest of the world needed something to believe in. The British government did not say it was going to do anything, and 24 hours later, most of Europe banned British beef, for the next 10 years. That took a major toll on the British beef industry.

Even if one has time to make a slow decision, if the development cost is high, and most decisions will not make a huge difference in results, then the quicker decision is going to take less time, and so cost much less, and still achieve roughly the same results. This is often the case in programming small projects.

However, if there is likely to be a large difference in results, and the development time is quite long anyway, then taking a bit longer to make a decision, will not extend the development time that much, and there will be a massive advantage in making a better decision. This is often the case in programming very large projects.

---------- Post added 07-04-2012 at 10:55 PM ----------

Originally Posted by obnoxious To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The method in a Ti + Ne approach is to search for identifiable relationships and create reasons for them, to then go out and find relationships that support your supposings... and on that goes with any relationship the NTP finds interesting enough (and given the creativity and perceptiveness of Ti, the NTP can and will create interesting reasons for the majority of them).*Through life he builds a Si storehouse of these relationship explanations which are placed in a created categorization system, and in that Si way a lot of things inspire reference to these in the NTP day to day, allowing one to build off them and brainstorm for identifiable relationships with others one is with at the time (or often enough on one's own) Regardless of what the specific biochemical causes are for some brains to have genetic preference/priority toward external perception and broader category consideration, the unconscious method to the madness is as I described.*

Sort of. One of the major advantages of Ti-Ne is "skill collecting". Ti-Ne takes a long time to develop a particular skill or technique. However, Ti-Ne develops skills and/or techniques that are highly reliable, and apply in a wide variety of situations. Once developed, the skills and techniques can pass into Si. Then they can be called and implemented on command, almost instantly.

In the beginning of using Ti-Ne in a field, one starts with very few skills and techniques, and developing new ones are very slow to come by. But, as one develops even one Ti-Ne skill and/or technique, the skill/technique is reliable, and applies in many situations. In one moment, it will probably now apply. But over the longer term, say, a year, it may come up dozens of times, and now, all the development time has been done early, and so it can be implemented almost instantly, dozens of times, saving huge amounts of effort and time. With each new skill, the same can be true of the next year, making huge savings in effort and time, dozens more times. Eventually, as one gets 20-50 skills/techniques, one has so many to call on, that are highly reliable, and apply so many times, that one often feels like most of one's work is already done for one.

The aspect of reliability applies to support issues. If the skills/techniques one implements are highly reliable, then the systems they apply to, become as reliable. Eventually, the system can become so reliable, that one hardly ever gets support issues from it.

So over the longer term, one ends up with a toolbox of methods that can and do solve almost any problem one comes across, almost instantly, and they work so well, that one never has to revisit them to fix any unforeseen consequences. Effectively, the system runs itself, and one never has to do any work.

This is one reason why INTPs can often seem so lazy and unproductive. We implement systems that do all the work for us, and we can sit back, relax, and concentrate on developing new skills, to solve the problems that are coming up, well before they ever happen, making things even more reliable, and even easier to implement and maintain.

[IncorrectLabel]

First of all Isaac Newton... I'll let your mind run with that.

Second, there are way too many personal "FE", statements flying around here. WE INTJ's, WE INTP's etc.

Finally, Isaac Newton came to epic conclusions by doing some very "P" stuff. Like running through various possibilities of the galaxy , gravity etc. But his thoughts and conclusions were , at least in his opinion, exact. When he was convinced or done with what gravity was, he was done. His book is very evident of this. Which is a very "J" thing.

Looking for answers, in 1684 Edmund Halley went to visit Isaac Newton in Cambridge, England, and posed the problem to him. A famous account of this meeting has been provided by mathematician Abraham De Moivre. In it, De Moivre wrote that after Halley posed the problem, Newton immediately responded that the planet must move in an ellipse if it moves under the inverse square force of gravitational attraction to the Sun. Halley asked how he knew this to be so, and Newton purportedly replied, “I have calculated it.” Halley asked Newton to write down his proof. Later that year Newton delivered his treatise, “On the Motion of Bodies in an Orbit.” In the space of nine pages, Newton calculated that if the planets are moving in elliptical orbits, they must be under the control of an inverse square force directed toward one focus of the ellipses in which they move. He went on to show that under the influence of an inverse square force, the orbits of all objects (whether moving slowly or swiftly) must describe a conic section.

There is a time and place for both, and the two types are naturally predisposed to coming to conclusions(or not) differently based off those functions.