[Indubitably]

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

Very close to the same flavor. I was also leaving open other possibilities, e.g., learning the "real motivation" for the redesign, where it might be something like, "We don't like how we are handling <thus and such>," which would give me a rather different focus than focusing on who the customer is. My approach would be to investigate the overall flow of things, get an idea of what they thought was wrong and what they wanted to do, and combine that with my own assessment of what was wrong, what is right and how best to handle the whole shebang. And I'd want to bring an xNTP along to make sure I hadn't missed anything important. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Well, I would start off by reminding everyone that everyone sees, and can "envision" things, and this is a part of everyone's thought process. The emphasis on Ni (and more specifically INTJ) "visual reasoning" is the extent to which Ni leans on it - such that if something cannot be envisioned this way, using other kinds of reasoning/logic becomes cumbersome. Also, the Ni version is abstractly visual. Sometimes it's visual movies, where one envisions a screenplay that could potentially be made concrete for other viewers, but oftentimes it's things that one doesn't normally "see" that are doing the interactions, e.g., information flows in a database model. To me, doing this sort of internal modeling is exactly the same kind of thought processes that aided me in my physics pursuits. Especially telling is that I'm using this kind of reasoning on databases, but it doesn't turn into mathematical equations like physics, and instead turns into some kind of "implementation" (code, queries, indexes, table relationships) that really cannot be described by equations.

Yeah, thats what I'm getting at though, everyone can visualize something, its a question of how you use that that visualization that makes the the distinction between something like Ni ans Si. When I visualize something, I'm literally visualizing something that has physical dimension, the visualization itself is not an abstraction like it is for Ni, all my abstraction and synthesis of ideas happens elsewhere. Ni and Ne are globaly opposite strategies, but its more like Ni and Si are both using the same part of the brain only in very different ways, so that when ever Ni has a hold of the "visualizer", it is unavailable to Si and visa versa. For Si its more of a literal "visualization", you actually see some sort visual image or impression of some object just exactly as it is, where as Ni may be visual in the the sense of giving an "impression", but what you're "visualizing" is closer to the functionality of something, or rather the potential evolution of functionality within a given context.


Even talking about the Ni process in terms of something is a little missleading, because its not really tied to the existing of something as imagery, so much as an abstract impression of time evolution itself within the confines of a given context. Granted, the process may very well get all mixed up with "images", but they're really more sign posts along the path of evolution. Its not an exact "rendering" of something, because its not even exactly a "thing" in the first place. There is some imagery that goes along for the ride but most of Ni's heavy lifting isn't visual in that literal sense of an explicitly defined manipulation of an image, or even the expression of an explicitly defined behavior or functionality.

Si can't do what Ni does because they are fundamentally different uses of the same capacity for "visualization". What Si does do well, is "render" something with absolute fidelity. What it renders need not literally be an object, it might be behavior as dictated by an abstract concept, or change, or movement, or even functionality, but what ever it is, it must be explicitly defined. In other words, Si must already know just exactly what something is before it can render that thing with absolute fidelity, where as it is precisely an impression of what you don't already know, that Ni is visualizing. Ni is in essence "visualizing" the evolution itself, the change in something through a progression, so it necessarily must not know just exactly what that thing is. In other words, to define something exactly would be a halting, or rather an inversion, of the functionality of Ni. Basically what I'm getting at is that while Ne is the inversion of Ni's cognitive "strategy", it is in fact Si that is an inversion of Ni's cognitive "functionality". Si is in essence a "knowing of" a thing, where as Ni is almost like an "unknowing of" a thing... if that makes any sense.

[obnoxious]

lol that was awesome. I've always stressed the Ni bent when using Je is to employ a strategy of (and I'm going to use metaphoric terms that I've used before) identifying the variables within a present or hypothetical system (Je) and Ni then comes in and the system with it's unique elements as a whole is looked at by Ni as an 'organism' contained within an ecosystem containing other organisms. The person using Ni plus Je will envision the system's evolution through time relative to everything interacting with it with pause, ffw, rewind, and zoom available, and what determines interactions of all things within is the definition of the function of all variables that satisfies Je in this context. Shifting contexts is shifting from which vantage point you would like to sit and watch things unfold, as every ecosystem is contained in a biome, etc.*

Ni-doms are skilled in this and walk around with the Je tools to create many complex visualization, it is when an externality triggers the correct tools to pop to the foreground that the correct system can evolve logically as defined by Je and the Ni-dom experiences an 'aha!' moment.***

Anyway you can tie your argument into the one I made in scorpiomover's thread and reason that while everyone starts with the same hardware capacity for visualization, it is the absence or presence of specific biochemicals in an individual that determines whether they employ it toward the definite and concrete (external) or to analyse the abstractions of things, eg. their function most prominently.*

[scorpiomover]

Came across this. Thought it very pertinent to comparing Ni to Ne.

Jung talking about Ni:

The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.

What do YOU think it means?

[shytiger]

Judging from my own experience with Ni, if you do find out exactly what a thing is, you almost immediately put it out of your mind because it clutters up your mental imagery. This is why Ni users forget details so easily. They often don't remember how they got to a given conclusion because it is only the conclusion or synthesis that matters and that they were certain of it.

Ni imagery is usually too abstract to express except in vague diagrammatic form and the combination of Ni and Te often involves trying to guess at what Ni is actually trying to show you because there's no precision. It's like (in a metaphorical sense) hearing a sound and knowing what direction it came from but not being able to say what it is. You have to take action (by moving closer) to fill in enough detail to understand what it is and that informs further action. INTJs are good strategists because they readily take action on little data because, to us, that little data always indicates some preferred action to take. In the case of an unidentified sound, moving closer is a "strategy". When you do move closer and can make out more of it, you refine your strategy based on additional information. Of course, it's not a sound and direction from outside that Ni gives but a sound and direction from inside---a sense of the right direction to head without necessarily knowing why or what good it will do.

Ne, on the other hand, rather than suggesting some action to take like "move closer" to discover the sound would suggest dozens of possible things the sound could be without necessarily moving any closer unless Ti or Fi sorts out the likely possibilities. An INTJ would be reluctant to guess. As the great Sherlock Holmes said, "it's a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." This is essentially an INTJ position and very much the opposite of the INTP or ENTP position which DEMANDS that one theorize before one has data.

[jndiii]

	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.
	Came across this. Thought it very pertinent to comparing Ni to Ne. Jung talking about Ni:What do YOU think it means?

OK, at first blush, I think it is the contrast to this, about Si:

Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus.

and also this about Si:

This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object.

Which, together with this -

Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.

would appear to mean no more than the obvious:

"Ni is concerned with the internal images, and not with real phenomena or objects." (Just as Ne is unconcerned with real objects, instead chasing the ideas.)

This is illustrative of my main dislike of quoting Jung too much. He said very simple things in very complicated ways, mostly because there was no simple way to say it before he established these ideas in the first place. A lot of the "mysterious" nature of the types that Jung is talking about has more to do with the language barrier (and not just the German-English translation) between him and us.

On the Si side, in that 2nd quote, there is also a dissociation from objects, but of a different character - the impression of the object remains, apart from the object itself. This would differ from Ni in that Ni is perhaps more aware of the dissociation, the lack of "connection between the phenomenon and himself."

Interestingly, these bits can also be summarized as, "Si is based on the subjective impression of objects, and Ni is based on the subjective impression of phenomena (or ideas or 'images')".

[Indubitably]

I think I kind of get where Shytyger is coming from, because if I'm right, the "un-knowing" of a thing sort of blooms outward, almost in that Ne divergence sort of way, but only in so far as it is able to obtain an instantaneous sense of the impression's potential evolution in all possible directions, so that the ideal direction of impression-evolution may be known, and in that very moment the impression will collapse back in upon itself towards that ideal direction. I suppose I am more or less borrowing something like the idea of electromagnetic wave propagation here to describe a sort of impression-propagation. Ni is a sort of reaching outward, or pulling of the image / impression away from itself and towards the context, but in doing this we have a movement of the impression that is in essence "simultaneously normal to" all dimensions of the context, so that Ni sort of collapses the impression in upon itself in the ideal direction of evolution. This is what I mean by an "unkowing of" a thing, it is exactly in the moveing away from of the impression that we have evolution. Where as Si is almost the opposite approach, it is essentially a folding in or kneading of the impression away from any given context, so as to refine or clarify an exact, or "absolute being" of the impression itself. In this sense Si is a constructive or fixative manipulation of the impression, and Ni is a deconstructive or motive manipulation of the impression. This is why Si seems "static" to Ni users, it appears to be "doing nothing" because the impression is "going nowhere", and why Ni seems "poorly formed" or without clarity and resolution of meaning to Si users, because the impression is never in one place long enough for a thing to be known as itself.

[scorpiomover]

Long post here. But if you skip to "7) Uses", you'll see that it's worth reading, and the rest is the Ti explanation for us INTPs, and to give INTJs reasoning that they can Te-validate. But I'm throwing out Ne here. So if anyone disagrees with this, please feel free to correct me, especially if it disagrees with your experience, so I can refine it.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Ni is concerned with the internal images, and not with real phenomena or objects." (Just as Ne is unconcerned with real objects, instead chasing the ideas.)

Actually, I think that what he means is this:

1) Intuition

Ne-users work with intuition externally. They look at things that most people know and have access to, and combine them in different ways, and then selects those combinations that most people, or at least, the people they are talking about, would find useful. There are many such ideas. Then they vocalise them, and let others decide if they are right or not (Fe or Te). Hence, Ne-users throw out many ideas. However, most ideas turn out to be wrong. Hence, most of their ideas seem rather pointless.

Ni-users work with intuition internally. An Ni-user looks at things that he knows and has, and combines them in different ways, and then selects those combinations that he would find useful. There are many such ideas. Then he decides if he is right or not, according to his methods of deciding what is right or not (Fi or Ti). So he also runs through many such ideas, but in his head. Only once he has come to one that he decided works, does he choose to vocalise them. Hence, he needs a lot more time in his own head, to run through all those combinations in his own head. Because he has evaluated them by his values, they work for him very, very well, when he uses them in his work. Because he knows himself so well, they are very consistent with all his experiences. Hence, because they seem to be true for everything he knows, he finds it very difficult to accept that his ideas are wrong.

However, because he has only evaluated them by his own values, but not for other people's values, others who try to use his ideas, often find that his ideas do not work for them, something that I have found is very, very common with Ni-doms. Their ideas almost always don't work for me, and need some tweaking, and without that tweaking, they often really screw things up for me.

2) Keeping more than one idea in one's mind simultaneously

For the same reasons, shytiger is right, that Ni-doms struggle to keep an idea fixed in their minds. They are doing all this combination-thinking in their minds, for the purposes of finding a combination that really works for them. There really isn't room to hold much else. So they can only think of one idea at a time. But because everything is internalised, it is highly consistent for them, and works with their values.

Ne-users find it much easier to hold many ideas in their minds, and to remember their previous ideas, because the intuitive process is all externalised. So it sits outside their minds, leaving them plenty of room to think of more combinations. So they can even run multiple combinations side-by-side, simultaneously.

3) Storing ideas for later recall

This also explains why Ni-doms are so productive, while Ne-doms seem to be less so.

For Ni-users, once the idea has been established and completed mentally, it can only be stored in Se. Se is externalised. It can only find room in external sensation, external action. So to store it, it must become part of physical experience.

For Ne-users, once the idea has been developed, it can only be stored in Si. Si is internal. So it can only be stored in internal memories. It can be stored there for later use. But acting them out, serves no purpose for the idea itself. Hence, Ne-users are happy to just think of ideas, without doing anything with them at the time. They do use them, but only later, when a use presents itself.

4) Objective versus subjective truth

For Ni-users, because the idea has to externalised and thus acted upon, if they answer a question today, that answer can only be acted upon today. Asking the same question tomorrow, will then require Ne again, which will then produce a different answer. So they give different answers to the same questions, as long as enough of the context changes, to produce a different result from Ne.

For Ne-uses, because the idea has to be stored in Si, if they answer a question today, that answer is stored in memory. Asking the same question tomorrow, will result in recall from Si, and thus the Ne-user recalls that he already has an answer, and so gives the same answer. So the same question can always be answered the same way.

5) Actions

For Ni-users, because the idea is stored in Se, if a task is required, and the Ne-user does it, the idea can be stored in Se. Then, when the same task is required again, the Ni-user can recall the solution from Se, and repeat it immediately, and can do so any time he wants.

For Ne-users, because the idea is stored in Si, if a task is required, and the Ni-user does it, the idea is stored in memory. Then, when the same task is required again, the Ne-user cannot recall it directly from Se. So Ne produces a different answer, and when they do it, they actually do it a different way.

6) Consequences

Ni-users NEED to use their ideas, to do something with them, to be able to recall them later. If they just say them, it won't stick. So if you ask them a question, and then ask the same question again, you'll get 2 different answers. But if you ask them to DO something, and then ask them to do the same thing again, they'll do it the same way, both times, but the second time, they'll do it much quicker than the first time.

Ne-users need to TALK their ideas, to be able to recall them later. If they just do them, it won't stick. So if you ask them a question, and ask them the same question later, they'll be able to answer the same questions in the same ways. If you ask them to DO something, they won't store it. So they'll do them 2 different ways.

7) Uses

Ni-users are really, really good at doing things. They are a powerhouse of action. They store up all these ideas in their Se, and can do all sorts of things. But they can't verbalise them, unless they actually doing them. So to get an Ni-user to remember his current idea, or recall his previous ideas, you have to make them start physically doing the thing. This explains why they have such an aversion to reporting what they are doing while in the middle of a task. They need to be physically doing it. So to get a report from an Ni-user on his current progress, best to go to his desk, and ask him to explain where he is up to, while he is still working.

Ne-users are really, really good at remembering. They are a powerhouse of knowledge. They store up all their ideas in their Si. But they won't be able to carry them out, unless they recall them and say them. So they end up re-inventing the wheel. So to get an Ne-user to re-use a previous idea, you have to get him to explain the idea to you again, or walk the steps through in his mind, and then he can redo it. Also explains how to get an Ne-user to change what he is doing. You have to stop him, so his Se disengages, and then ask him to explain the process, like a memory, so his Si can engage, and then correct him, and only once the conversation is over, is it good for him to go back to work and engage his Se.

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

This is illustrative of my main dislike of quoting Jung too much. He said very simple things in very complicated ways, mostly because there was no simple way to say it before he established these ideas in the first place. A lot of the "mysterious" nature of the types that Jung is talking about has more to do with the language barrier (and not just the German-English translation) between him and us.

Actually, I find Jung quite revealing. But then, he shows the careful use of words that I do, and chooses unusual words, that express quite abstract concepts, in the same way that I would. I think that the reason I see so much in his words, and you don't, is because he writes like a Ti-dom, and INTJs seem to have a lot of problems in following the reasoning of Ti-doms.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Interestingly, these bits can also be summarized as, "Si is based on the subjective impression of objects, and Ni is based on the subjective impression of phenomena (or ideas or 'images')".

I think I preferred the way that Indubitably described the difference between Ni and Si:

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.

Si can't do what Ni does because they are fundamentally different uses of the same capacity for "visualization". What Si does do well, is "render" something with absolute fidelity. What it renders need not literally be an object, it might be behavior as dictated by an abstract concept, or change, or movement, or even functionality, but what ever it is, it must be explicitly defined. In other words, Si must already know just exactly what something is before it can render that thing with absolute fidelity, where as it is precisely an impression of what you don't already know, that Ni is visualizing. Ni is in essence "visualizing" the evolution itself, the change in something through a progression, so it necessarily must not know just exactly what that thing is. In other words, to define something exactly would be a halting, or rather an inversion, of the functionality of Ni. Basically what I'm getting at is that while Ne is the inversion of Ni's cognitive "strategy", it is in fact Si that is an inversion of Ni's cognitive "functionality". Si is in essence a "knowing of" a thing, where as Ni is almost like an "unknowing of" a thing... if that makes any sense.

So, what you are saying, is that Si-users are great at dealing with things they have previously got clear, but if they don't have it clear in their heads, they can't work with it. So they are great at dealing with the familiar, but terrible with the unknown.

This also gives me the idea of why INTPs are such scaredy-cats. We have unconscious Si. So we have an unconscious fear of the unknown. We like the unknown, because of Ne. But it also scares us.

Ni-users are great at dealing with things that they have previously not got clear experience of, but once they are very familiar with it, they can't really work with it. So they are great at dealing with the unknown, but terrible at dealing with the familiar, and hence, have an almost pathological hatred of conventionality.

This also explains why INTJs usually hate working for others. They are often being asked to do the conventional thing, and when they are, their Ni fades out.

[jndiii]

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.

I think I kind of get where Shytyger is coming from, because if I'm right, the "un-knowing" of a thing sort of blooms outward, almost in that Ne divergence sort of way, but only in so far as it is able to obtain an instantaneous sense of the impression's potential evolution in all possible directions, so that the ideal direction of impression-evolution may be known, and in that very moment the impression will collapse back in upon itself towards that ideal direction. I suppose I am more or less borrowing something like the idea of electromagnetic wave propagation here to describe a sort of impression-propagation. Ni is a sort of reaching outward, or pulling of the image / impression away from itself and towards the context, but in doing this we have a movement of the impression that is in essence "simultaneously normal to" all dimensions of the context, so that Ni sort of collapses the impression in upon itself in the ideal direction of evolution. This is what I mean by an "unkowing of" a thing, it is exactly in the moveing away from of the impression that we have evolution. Where as Si is almost the opposite approach, it is essentially a folding in or kneading of the impression away from any given context, so as to refine or clarify an exact, or "absolute being" of the impression itself. In this sense Si is a constructive or fixative manipulation of the impression, and Ni is a deconstructive or motive manipulation of the impression. This is why Si seems "static" to Ni users, it appears to be "doing nothing" because the impression is "going nowhere", and why Ni seems "poorly formed" or without clarity and resolution of meaning to Si users, because the impression is never in one place long enough for a thing to be known as itself.

Very much so.

I metaphorically view Si as kind of a crystal lattice, where the connections between nodes in the lattice are what Ne tends to follow. (This includes "following" them beyond the known lattice, of course.)

For Ni/Se, I look at it like the curve or trajectory of a function. Se is aware of the tangent point of the curve at any (present) instant in time. From that tangent, Se is able to react quickly to incoming data. Yes, the data might change in the future, but not before Se has handled it. Ni instead waits and watches and tries to see the overall trajectory. So Ni reacts slower, but does so very deliberately and in anticipation of the overall trajectory.

A good way to describe what Ni "memorizes" is typical trajectory shapes. This is why an experienced Ni dom can see a handful of data points and instantly have a bunch of knowledge that seems to come from nowhere: the handful of data points eliminate all possible trajectory shapes except for one, which immediately fills in all the rest of the data points of the trajectory. More frequently, however, we just have the experience to know which trajectory(ies) is/are in play already, without having to figure it out from scant data. Ni-dom stubbornness comes about when others make statements that contradict these known trajectories, and don't know how to argue against them.

Ni/Se looks at the Ne/Si lattice and says, "but you're just stating tautologies" (that the lattice is there because the lattice is there), "those are just facts that don't actually mean anything when put together" (meaning == have a trajectory). When Ni tries to read "trajectories" on the lattice, it tends to see straight lines, making Si seem kind of linear, when it's really just looking at Si the wrong way. Similarly, it tries to see the trajectories of Ne, and Ne is either following a "linear" path out beyond the lattice or hopping around randomly on the lattice, neither of which is a proper read of Ne/Si in its own terms.

Ne/Si looks at the Ni trajectory and says, "dude, your data is really lacking" (you have no Si lattice to navigate), "you need to be more precise" (the trajectories are precise, but faint and fuzzy to Ne/Si, because they are threads woven on a loom, not lego blocks to snap together).

[Smacknrat]

^ What interaction methods have you seen work with Ne/Si in communicating with an Ni-dom?

The frustrations are many. e.g. Communication breakdowns when Ni-doms pick up (even slightly) that their ideas as disjointed or "worthless".

Conversely, Ne or Si users will hold a notion and, when offered an alternative, usually ask A clarifying question and just stare at you with contempt...

[jndiii]

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.

Actually, I think that what he means is this: 1) Intuition Ne-users work with intuition externally. They look at things that most people know and have access to, and combine them in different ways, and then selects those combinations that most people, or at least, the people they are talking about, would find useful. There are many such ideas. Then they vocalise them, and let others decide if they are right or not (Fe or Te). Hence, Ne-users throw out many ideas. However, most ideas turn out to be wrong. Hence, most of their ideas seem rather pointless.

This appears to be fairly accurate, if a bit too self-deprecating. The idea generation has a point. To treat the individual ideas as stand-alone is missing the point.

	Ni-users work with intuition internally. An Ni-user looks at things that he knows and has, and combines them in different ways, and then selects those combinations that he would find useful. There are many such ideas. Then he decides if he is right or not, according to his methods of deciding what is right or not (Fi or Ti).

I disagree that Fi or Ti play much of a role, here. Most people overestimate how much they "use" their tertiary/inferior. Fi is not "INTJ feelings", Fi is more aptly (but not precisely) the INTJ approach to feelings when the INTJ considers such an approach to be valid.

	So he also runs through many such ideas, but in his head. Only once he has come to one that he decided works, does he choose to vocalise them.

And actually, not even vocalize. Act. (As you note later.)

Hence, he needs a lot more time in his own head, to run through all those combinations in his own head. Because he has evaluated them by his values, they work for him very, very well, when he uses them in his work. Because he knows himself so well, they are very consistent with all his experiences. Hence, because they seem to be true for everything he knows, he finds it very difficult to accept that his ideas are wrong.

"Wrong" is too strong, here. Einstein got closer to the truth, but that didn't make Newton "wrong". "Incomplete" is a better word. I find that Ti+Ne highly values completeness, often saying that something is incorrect when one really means incomplete.

	However, because he has only evaluated them by his own values, but not for other people's values, others who try to use his ideas, often find that his ideas do not work for them, something that I have found is very, very common with Ni-doms. Their ideas almost always don't work for me, and need some tweaking, and without that tweaking, they often really screw things up for me.

Well, we do evaluate them for others' values, but not as a matter of course. The funny thing is that the ideas you're talking about that need tweaking, Ni-doms expect them to be tweaked. You're just disturbed that they need tweaking in the first place.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

2) Keeping more than one idea in one's mind simultaneously For the same reasons, shytiger is right, that Ni-doms struggle to keep an idea fixed in their minds. They are doing all this combination-thinking in their minds, for the purposes of finding a combination that really works for them. There really isn't room to hold much else. So they can only think of one idea at a time. But because everything is internalised, it is highly consistent for them, and works with their values. Ne-users find it much easier to hold many ideas in their minds, and to remember their previous ideas, because the intuitive process is all externalised. So it sits outside their minds, leaving them plenty of room to think of more combinations. So they can even run multiple combinations side-by-side, simultaneously.

I believe you are misreading shytiger's point. It's the "thing" that moves out of the mind, not the ideas. The ideas stay. The ideas are plural, but they don't look like your ideas (in the Ne-Si lattice), but are intertwining threads/tools/strategies/phenomena. I would suggest that your "many ideas" is really just the large collection of Si nodes of the lattice, that Ne regards as many ideas. (Just a suggestion - I'm more interested in your feedback or reaction.)

	3) Storing ideas for later recall This also explains why Ni-doms are so productive, while Ne-doms seem to be less so. For Ni-users, once the idea has been established and completed mentally, it can only be stored in Se. Se is externalised. It can only find room in external sensation, external action. So to store it, it must become part of physical experience.

I think you're on to something, here. Just recall that this is inferior Se, not dominant Se. It's sort of like "muscle memory", but it's more like "action memory". These again are the "threads" I'm talking about that Ni uses/remembers.

I would suggest that it is "stored" in "Ni", not Se. An ongoing hypothesis of mine is that one's introverted functions (of the top four, to be specific) represent how one remembers. INTJ memory would thus be Ni-Fi: dynamic models that one needs to have "feel" consistent. INTP memory would be Ti-Si: logically consistent arrangement of static (Si) understandings. (It's important to note that Si can store "F=ma" just as easily as Ni, but Si does so in a different way. Ni-Fi stores it as a notion of how the world works; Ti-Si stores it as a logical fact.)

	For Ne-users, once the idea has been developed, it can only be stored in Si. Si is internal. So it can only be stored in internal memories. It can be stored there for later use. But acting them out, serves no purpose for the idea itself. Hence, Ne-users are happy to just think of ideas, without doing anything with them at the time. They do use them, but only later, when a use presents itself.

Yeah, this actually makes a lot of sense. It would be interesting to see if any ISTJs have a similar perspective on Ne/Si (Si/Ne for them).

4) Objective versus subjective truth For Ni-users, because the idea has to externalised and thus acted upon, if they answer a question today, that answer can only be acted upon today. Asking the same question tomorrow, will then require Ne again, which will then produce a different answer. So they give different answers to the same questions, as long as enough of the context changes, to produce a different result from Ne.

Mostly agreed, but I don't think that it is correct to say that the idea has to be externalized. What you call an "idea" has a very Si character to it, so you only "see" the idea from an Ni dom when the Ni dom brings it into the Se realm. You see the different answers, but you don't see that it's the exact same idea.

Consider the idea of "tomorrow." Today, "tomorrow" is Sunday, but on Sunday, "tomorrow" will be Monday. The idea of "tomorrow" stays the same. This is how most Ni ideas "work." What happens though is that others will hear "tomorrow" and then store the concrete result, "Sunday", which makes total sense. But often the Ni-dom doesn't mean "Sunday" in a concrete way, but the "concept of tomorrow" in an abstract way. But because we state things with extroverted judging, it comes out as sounding very concretely as a particular day. Of course, if one takes the time and effort, it can be made clear that the abstract version is what is intended, but (as you will often hear Ni-doms complain) it can take a LOT of effort to do so with enough clarity to be understood, so there is a tendency to err on the lazy side and give up, and just give answers that are temporarily correct.

	For Ne-uses, because the idea has to be stored in Si, if they answer a question today, that answer is stored in memory. Asking the same question tomorrow, will result in recall from Si, and thus the Ne-user recalls that he already has an answer, and so gives the same answer. So the same question can always be answered the same way.

It's because what you store is of a different quality that it seems like your memory is better. Ni is bad at memorizing concrete things; it memorizes behaviors and actions and phenomena. It memorizes the actions, not the actors. It memorizes "tomorrow", not "Sunday, June 23, 2012."

	5) Actions For Ni-users, because the idea is stored in Se, if a task is required, and the Ne-user does it, the idea can be stored in Se. Then, when the same task is required again, the Ni-user can recall the solution from Se, and repeat it immediately, and can do so any time he wants.

Sort of. What you call "stored in Se" is really just "Ni memorizing actions".

	For Ne-users, because the idea is stored in Si, if a task is required, and the Ni-user does it, the idea is stored in memory. Then, when the same task is required again, the Ne-user cannot recall it directly from Se. So Ne produces a different answer, and when they do it, they actually do it a different way.

I believe this is correct. Ne/Si stores the "what" and "where" and "who". Ni/Se stores the "how" and "why".

6) Consequences Ni-users NEED to use their ideas, to do something with them, to be able to recall them later. If they just say them, it won't stick. So if you ask them a question, and then ask the same question again, you'll get 2 different answers. But if you ask them to DO something, and then ask them to do the same thing again, they'll do it the same way, both times, but the second time, they'll do it much quicker than the first time.

I would emphasize "use" instead of "need", just as you emphasize "talk" for Ne, below.

Ni is very bad at rote memorization, and very good at hands-on learning. Your observations are apt, here, though I have some disagreement with the conclusions. In the "ask them a question", that gets two different answers, you're not seeing how the second question is different, even if it is exactly the same question. If you ask me "What day is tomorrow?" I'll answer "Sunday." If you ask me on Sunday, I'll say "Monday." Exact same question, different answers. The underlying threads of how things evolve tend to elude you unless you make a strong effort to see them, just as I tend to fail at rote memorization.

In short, if you ask a question that requires a concrete answer, you get the temporarily correct concrete answer. If you ask a question that requires one to describe a phenomenon in general, you'll get pretty much the same answer (note that in this case wording will change, because repeated questions imply you didn't understand the prior wording!).

	Ne-users need to TALK their ideas, to be able to recall them later. If they just do them, it won't stick. So if you ask them a question, and ask them the same question later, they'll be able to answer the same questions in the same ways. If you ask them to DO something, they won't store it. So they'll do them 2 different ways.

Hmm. I often talk my ideas through, too, so I'm not sure how far this applies. I can easily see Ne doing the same thing in two different ways, though, so you're definitely on to something, here. The action vs the thing being treated differently, based on whether Ni/Se or Ne/Si.

7) Uses Ni-users are really, really good at doing things. They are a powerhouse of action. They store up all these ideas in their Se, and can do all sorts of things. But they can't verbalise them, unless they actually doing them. So to get an Ni-user to remember his current idea, or recall his previous ideas, you have to make them start physically doing the thing. This explains why they have such an aversion to reporting what they are doing while in the middle of a task. They need to be physically doing it. So to get a report from an Ni-user on his current progress, best to go to his desk, and ask him to explain where he is up to, while he is still working.

Um, you appear to be contradicting yourself here: should one or should one not interrupt an Ni user while in the middle of a task to get an explanation of it? Personally, I'd say that you shouldn't interrupt me while I'm really doing it, and that no, I'd not be able to explain what I was doing, because I was in "doing it" mode (more Ni), not "express ideas" mode (more Te). E.g., my current mode is "express ideas", so my replies are just flowing. If you were to ask me to describe how my ideas are flowing, then I'd have no ready reply.

I believe that it is correct that if I need to recall something, I need to "go through it" again, though not necessarily physically. This was actually a bone of contention with my ex-wife (ESFJ): she'd tell me long stories about her work day, and then she'd want to hear about my day. She felt rejected because I wouldn't do that. For me to tell her about my work day, I'd have to re-live it. It is like having to go to work all over again, and this time I don't get paid.

Ne-users are really, really good at remembering. They are a powerhouse of knowledge. They store up all their ideas in their Si. But they won't be able to carry them out, unless they recall them and say them. So they end up re-inventing the wheel. So to get an Ne-user to re-use a previous idea, you have to get him to explain the idea to you again, or walk the steps through in his mind, and then he can redo it. Also explains how to get an Ne-user to change what he is doing. You have to stop him, so his Se disengages, and then ask him to explain the process, like a memory, so his Si can engage, and then correct him, and only once the conversation is over, is it good for him to go back to work and engage his Se.

I'm not too sure how you mean Se, here. I wouldn't regard Ne as ever "using Se", except in a very loose sense of the word.

	Actually, I find Jung quite revealing. But then, he shows the careful use of words that I do, and chooses unusual words, that express quite abstract concepts, in the same way that I would. I think that the reason I see so much in his words, and you don't, is because he writes like a Ti-dom, and INTJs seem to have a lot of problems in following the reasoning of Ti-doms.

There is much debate about Jung's type, so I don't find this to be a useful analysis, because it relies on typing him as INTP. INTJs don't always find other INTJs to be clear and I find his concept of "functions" to be very Ni-based. Personally, I lean towards his being an Ni-dom, but I haven't eliminated INTP as a possibility. Perhaps if he makes that much sense to you, then he is INTP.

I think I preferred the way that Indubitably described the difference between Ni and Si:So, what you are saying, is that Si-users are great at dealing with things they have previously got clear, but if they don't have it clear in their heads, they can't work with it. So they are great at dealing with the familiar, but terrible with the unknown. This also gives me the idea of why INTPs are such scaredy-cats. We have unconscious Si. So we have an unconscious fear of the unknown. We like the unknown, because of Ne. But it also scares us. Ni-users are great at dealing with things that they have previously not got clear experience of, but once they are very familiar with it, they can't really work with it. So they are great at dealing with the unknown, but terrible at dealing with the familiar, and hence, have an almost pathological hatred of conventionality. This also explains why INTJs usually hate working for others. They are often being asked to do the conventional thing, and when they are, their Ni fades out.

I can definitely identify with this last bit. It isn't so much the "working for others", but being told to do things in ways that have already been decided. I don't need to run the show, but I do need to be able to decide how to do things, since that is how I "engage my Ni". Being a software developer hits this balance for me: I'm asked to accomplish things, but I'm hired for my expertise in being able to figure out how to accomplish them.

I wouldn't generalize about an aversion to familiarity, in this regard, however. With respect to ideas, yes, I need new ideas, or I'm bored. I don't want to be thinking about the same things over and over. But there is room for familiarity, which has a lot to do with the Ni aversion to Se: Ni needs to be able to push "sensation" aside in order to think. This is most easily achieved in a familiar environment, with familiar smells and sights and sounds, all completely expected and understood to not merit attention. An interesting side bit from Nardi on ENxJs: they can sort of do the "Ni zen" thing, but they apparently often use a physical sensory focus to achieve it. This is the same thing I'm talking about, but on a larger scale. In an office, I can find it very hard to focus, unless I manage to finally feel comfortable and "at home" in it. Working from home for several years, I found myself to be far more productive than I have been before or since.

---------- Post added 06-23-2012 at 08:51 AM ----------

	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.
	^ What interaction methods have you seen work with Ne/Si in communicating with an Ni-dom? The frustrations are many. e.g. Communication breakdowns when Ni-doms pick up (even slightly) that their ideas as disjointed or "worthless". Conversely, Ne or Si users will hold a notion and, when offered an alternative, usually ask A clarifying question and just stare at you with contempt...

With you as the Ni-dom, I'd say that you should strive to ask questions more than answer them. Don't say what you think in a conclusive, declarative way, because that shuts down the conversation. Notice how they always ask "clarifying questions" that never seem to end? There is no definitive answer that will truly satisfy them (assuming Ne is prevalent over Si).

Si is actually easier to deal with than you might think: it's usually level-headed and sensible, and not a "rules nazi" in the pejorative sense of another recent thread, here.

The main thing for both Ne and Si is data, and lots of it. Aside from the scientific concept of repeatable experiments, a rigorous use of statistics is often very persuasive (i.e., it says that something is true in a lot of a cases, so even if you aren't sure why it's true, it probably is true.) Their disdain that you perceive is for your individual, unsubstantiated (to them) opinion. Substantiate it. Provide sources, provide evidence, demonstrate consistency. Remember that Ni looks very inconsistent to them (see Scorpiomover's post). They don't see the functional relationships that you instinctively see and understand. It's your job to map that understanding into their terms.

[obnoxious]

In response to indubitably's post, I wouldn't agree with the instantaneous evolution of impression when creeping forward to the unknown, because tha implies that the evolution of each new impression would have to interact with the evolution of the previous impression (which has collapsed and is rendered moot with this new impression) in order for the strategy to be of benefit.. otherwise one would do well to close one's eyes until the end, the last impression... but it could make sense in a moment

It's funny that we've moved our way to defining the method of imagery an Ni-dom experiences (could be a wild goose chase with respect to the individual).. regardless here's my take on the secod half of indubitably's post and jndii's idea of the trajectory without the lattice.

Somoene says picture a table

Si-dom pictures a table that since childhood when first introduced to the thing 'table' he has used to compare all future tables against, or if someone is refering to a known table he would picture that one.*

Ni-dom almost hesitates to picture a table because you haven't given him context, he wants to picture the situation the table is in so he can know with what type of table he's dealing. He still automaticall pictures the whole scene but while only having 'table' to go on it takes the form of a 'negative' picture, as in there is a space dedicated for a table, and there is black space surrounding giving rise to the outline of the table. The blackness represents Ni possibilty, and is waiting to be filled in with context. What we end up with is the 3d negative 'abstract inpression' aka fuzzy image of the word 'table' coasting through 'context space' waiting to be collapsed inward to become a positive object at a decided on point in context space/reality.

I said the first part about impression evolution could make sense because if anyone can agree with this description, one could imagine that an Ni-dom's strategy when analysing a problem is to stay in 'abstract impression space' to allow fr Ni possibilites to be imagined. Thus when a new impression adds to the curret image of an unknown, it's 'abstract impression' is deduced so it too can interact in abstract impression space with all previous impressions.

But the instantaneous evoltuion still doesn't jive I guess, because the process of Ni speculation into the context of an impression is a conscious one.

The Ni unconcious thing that is reported ften is simply the conscious method of Ni speculation of exploring different vantage points can make its way to te unconscious, and sometimes a new impression will be the last puzzle piece necessary fr all the Je abstract impressions collected thus far to solidify (gain function relative to context) in our 3d impression space and we're left with more context and less blackness, and either the remaining blackness can be forgotten or it will be explained now that the impressions can progress with one another as defined by Je in the context.

Sometimes 'that' happens instantaneously, but it's only after conscious speculation and 'enough' abstract impressions have een collected to support the speculation of this context or that.. The amount of astract impression info the Ni-dom needs varies because sonetimes the context is apparent and the relevat Je things fall into place, *or perhaps a Je thing only leaves room for the possibility of a particular context (these insights come with practice/pattern recognition or by having a larger Je 'Ni possibility box' to consider).. all the Ni-er needs before action is the one context molding the abstract impression image into making sense with the problem at hand (even in a hazy, 'don't quite have both feet out of abstract impression space yet' way), sometimes the Ni-dom will be able to act atleast in the right direction with little info to go on*

Basically the Ni strategy is to deduce all abstract impressions of objects in a situation and then brainstorm in abstract impression space in what context would all these impressions make sense?/ in what context can all these abstract impressions adopt functions that make sense in relation to each other and allow the problem at hand to develop to the point where we currently find ourselves?


Just to clarify, context also shifts when one assigns a different function to the same object (and the different function is arrived at by the Ni switching of vantage points togain new perspective), and that cause for context shift then causes a cascade effect where the rest of the impressions need to take on a new function to make 'Je sense' relative to the new context (like what if the speed of light was a constant? (lol)) which can now be explored in AIS as a mock demo of context space .. seems obvious, but I haven't really explored by wha method one goes about filling said blackness with apparently random context experiments, but briefly it requires Je manipulation within the fuzzy parameters of abstract impression space (AIS), to be clear (lol).

---------- Post added 06-23-2012 at 12:42 PM ----------

Edit: one could speculate this strategy of multiple-layered visualization and referencing requires the (speculated as being related to) Ni 'whole brain mde'

[Indubitably]

Obnoxious,

Yeah, I suppose I wasn't very clear about that because I was operating under the assumption that everyone here shared the same background in calculus and analysis that jndii, shy tiger, and I have been exposed to. When I refer to something as being,"instantaneous" in this respect, my meaning is not, "all at once" but rather, "for this infinitesimal sliver of progress". Which is to say that the process of contextual recognition is smoothly continuous rather than discrete. In effect it has a certain desired trajectory as jndiii puts it, but that trajectory depends continuously on the moment just before it, so that the new trajectory as we see it evolving is not simply a single aptly chosen old trajectory, but rather a layering and smoothing out of known trajectories one after the other.

The context does frame things in, but just exactly what the context is may not be absolutely static. Its more like the context is a soup; Te knows what the best ingredients for the soup are, Ni knows whether you are getting closer to or further from the "desired flavor", and Fi-Se knows when the soup is starting smell a little, "off". Your job as the chef is to have a clear understanding of what you want from the soup ahead of time, and to map out a way to get from where you are to where you want to be with what you've got at hand, but to also be flexible enough to shift gears and adjust your ingredients as necessary to keep the soup on track as new tastes and scents present themselves.

Like you say, the process is organic, and you can zoom in and out to what ever scale is called for at the moment. What jndiii seems to more or less be getting at in his response to me is the idea that the trajectory-impression almost seems to "roll out from underneath" the data as you move through the trajectory itself. He is also making a point of noting that Ni users do in fact store vast amounts of "impression memory" just like Si users, only they are "trajectory" impressions rather than "singularity" impressions. Which, if you think about it, fits perfectly with the fact that both Si doms and Ni doms display the "blue Zen state" when they are really "in the zone". Basically what this means is that the "imagining of a new or novel solution" is in fact itself a very well practice skill, just like using a screw driver to build a clock, or shooting a gun to hit a target. It gets back to the whole "generalist" versus "specialist" thing, and basically what the existence of an Ni "blue Zen state" is telling us, is that INTJs have essentially "specialized" in being generalists. Which leads me to believe that I was correct in assuming that Ni and Si use the same part of the brain but in very different ways. My guess is that Ni simply uses it primarily in conjunction with a different arrangement of other parts of the brain than does Si, so that they have a similar sort of capacity for the processing of impressions, but just impressions of a distinctly different character and qualification.

[obnoxious]

Oooohh, con-tin-ew-us (did I sAy that right?)!

There's no misunderstanding (atleast on my end), we're discussing thought in general and you're assuming thought with purpose. I'm working with the concept of a normal human being looking at new info day to day discretely and rationally (in a way reflective of their temperament) and not with the concept of a person looking through a soup covered lens ontop of a tank on course for world domination. You're saying an Ni user will always start with a specific soup in mind even with*uncertain ingredients, and I'm suggesting what makes sense which is that the function of the ingredients defines the meal (and that meals can be combined to create novel*meal*ideas (that need not be acted on)). aka context is always derived from the external (which can be manipulated for speculation) thus no idealized*path of evolution can be chosen to propogate the trajectory, this is especially damaging to your case in the consideration of the initial moment 0.0.0.0. And most importantly if *i narrow my focus and consider only times of motivated thinking, and I cede that the overall trajectory of a given recipe or day or week when an Ni'er has plans (or the overall 'worldview' over a lifetime attributed to Ni-doms) is considered in rhe decisions relevent to that time frame and the method could be explained by your model, I'm still talking about what the imagery in any given point of impression evolution looks like, including when the new impression has no relevance to the Ni-dom's life up to that moment and no future relevance. Like if the person was given broccoli and told to 'examine this soup you wont be eating' and tasked to determine if broccoli is a suitable addition for the current ingredients and elapsed time, my post describes how the Ni'er would approach that.*

In other words, we have a divergence in thought, it's not misinterpretation of your words. lol you're a funny guy
***

[Indubitably]

There really is no attempt to insinuate that you are lacking intelligence here Obnoxious. Some people are going to be familiar with one form of technical jargon, other people are going to be familar with another. I could probably think of a half dozen prize winning mathematicians and scientists who couldn't tell you what the term habeus corpus means, what a mitre gear does, or which primary colour chartreuse most closely resembles, yet clearly this in no way implies that they are idiots. Nor, for that matter, is there any insinuation that an INTJ is any more devoid of the capacity to spontaneously brainstorm than an ENTP is devoid of the capacity to generate an effective goal oriented plan, just because the two might approach the situation differently. Seriously, it was a clarification of what I was thinking, not an attempt to call into question the authority of your opinion. If I have some specific point of contention to make concerning your assertions, I'll address your assertions, not your academic pedigree.

[shytiger]

@Scorpiomover, By "thing" I was referring more to details---the "trees" in the forest---rather than ideas, but the ideas and perspectives only stay in the mind if they are useful, otherwise they are typically eliminated as well. I might, for example, listen to an entire conversation, come to a conclusion, then forget everything that was said (and possibly that the conversation took place) but still remember the conclusion I came to. Now, AS LONG AS, I don't need to explain my conclusion to anybody else, then I'm fine. I simply trust that I came to the right conclusion at the time and act on it. The action is visible to everyone but not the reasoning behind it. The reasoning is not even visible to me because it has usually been transformed into an almost faith-like conviction in my own conclusions.

[scorpiomover]

Jndiii, your post has much to say, that I agree with. But I'm having a hard time putting my agreement into words. So I'll post on it, once I've got a better handle on it.

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.

@Scorpiomover, By "thing" I was referring more to details---the "trees" in the forest---rather than ideas, but the ideas and perspectives only stay in the mind if they are useful, otherwise they are typically eliminated as well. I might, for example, listen to an entire conversation, come to a conclusion, then forget everything that was said (and possibly that the conversation took place) but still remember the conclusion I came to. Now, AS LONG AS, I don't need to explain my conclusion to anybody else, then I'm fine. I simply trust that I came to the right conclusion at the time and act on it. The action is visible to everyone but not the reasoning behind it.

That is OK, as long as you ACT on it, but don't TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT. Otherwise, INTJs often sound like they have plausible reasoning to people who don't think for themselves, and fatally flawed reasoning to people who do think for themselves. Reason being, Ni-Te seems to improve the efficiency of the solution as you go along. Telling me about it, or even instructing me about it, is rather like asking you to report where you are up to, in the middle of doing a task.

	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.
	The reasoning is not even visible to me because it has usually been transformed into an almost faith-like conviction in my own conclusions.

That sort of statement really freaks me out. Makes you sound like a religious extremist, who has utter conviction that blowing people up, is a good idea. I know that you don't mean it like that. But still, that is what it reminds me of, and it does scare me.

REALLY don't know what to do with that, what to say to INTJs when I hear it, how to express that I can't follow what I don't understand and sounds positive dangerous, without sounding like I am criticising them to the hilt, which is what INTJs seem to take from what I say in response to such convictions.

[shytiger]

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.

That sort of statement really freaks me out. Makes you sound like a religious extremist, who has utter conviction that blowing people up, is a good idea. I know that you don't mean it like that. But still, that is what it reminds me of, and it does scare me. REALLY don't know what to do with that, what to say to INTJs when I hear it, how to express that I can't follow what I don't understand and sounds positive dangerous, without sounding like I am criticising them to the hilt, which is what INTJs seem to take from what I say in response to such convictions.

The difference is that if somebody asks me for an explanation I'll usually put a lot of work into coming up with one, especially if I'm pressed for one. I recall a time in grad school when my INTP advisor took to needling my thesis on a regular basis as the lead up to my defense. Once I was at the board and he was saying something like "if this isn't true, your whole argument falls apart." I just shrugged because I KNEW it was true. I just couldn't explain why, but I stayed up there until suddenly the answer occurred to me as I was talking, and I was able to provide rigorous proof of the statement. It's not that we stick to our convictions against all evidence. It's that we stick to our convictions until the evidence rolls in that proves us wrong. Give us a good argument and we will instantly change our minds.

[scorpiomover]

	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.
	Give us a good argument and we will instantly change our minds.

Ti-based arguments don't seem to cut it for INTJs. Also, it's difficult to tell when I've given a good argument, because INTJs don't like to admit to being wrong. So I can only see when an INTJ has changed his mind, by hearing from others, that he is now doing what I recommended.

[jndiii]

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.

That is OK, as long as you ACT on it, but don't TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT. Otherwise, INTJs often sound like they have plausible reasoning to people who don't think for themselves, and fatally flawed reasoning to people who do think for themselves. Reason being, Ni-Te seems to improve the efficiency of the solution as you go along. Telling me about it, or even instructing me about it, is rather like asking you to report where you are up to, in the middle of doing a task. That sort of statement really freaks me out. Makes you sound like a religious extremist, who has utter conviction that blowing people up, is a good idea. I know that you don't mean it like that. But still, that is what it reminds me of, and it does scare me. REALLY don't know what to do with that, what to say to INTJs when I hear it, how to express that I can't follow what I don't understand and sounds positive dangerous, without sounding like I am criticising them to the hilt, which is what INTJs seem to take from what I say in response to such convictions.

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.

The difference is that if somebody asks me for an explanation I'll usually put a lot of work into coming up with one, especially if I'm pressed for one. I recall a time in grad school when my INTP advisor took to needling my thesis on a regular basis as the lead up to my defense. Once I was at the board and he was saying something like "if this isn't true, your whole argument falls apart." I just shrugged because I KNEW it was true. I just couldn't explain why, but I stayed up there until suddenly the answer occurred to me as I was talking, and I was able to provide rigorous proof of the statement. It's not that we stick to our convictions against all evidence. It's that we stick to our convictions until the evidence rolls in that proves us wrong. Give us a good argument and we will instantly change our minds.

Yeah, the problem is that as an INTP, scorpiomover, you're looking for all the thoughts and evidence that you would require in order to even arrive at a conclusion in the first place. That isn't how INTJs store things, and you see the lack of these simple requirements as a severe lack of reasoning capacity with potentially dangerous consequences.

As shytiger points out, we can translate our thoughts into acceptable proofs, but that isn't how it's all stored. What is stored is that "X is true", just as you store "Y is true", but our X and your Y are entirely different kinds of entities. X is a dynamic/action truth that cannot be stated easily in words (Ni), while Y is an eternal concrete truth (Si). These are the building blocks we use.

Where the disconnect comes in is that you cannot directly use our building blocks to construct our truths. We have to translate them into something more concrete for others to understand. Similarly, we don't reason with your building blocks. Instead, we gradually let the Si facts accumulate and nudge our own understanding to fit with them. Once we get a working internal model, we reason by using that model and gradually refining it as more data is eventually discovered, but the refinements often can't be described with words. When we have a refined model (in which we have "faith", as shytiger alarmingly put it), then we fairly effortlessly use the internal model, and keep another model in parallel which is the "explanation model" of the same thing. Think software plus documentation - the documentation doesn't (and cannot) describe the software 100%, but it's usually enough for other people to work with.

Another analogy might be the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, with which one can translate complicated differential equations into simple algebraic ones. Ni is like thinking totally within that Fourier "space" if you will, and it translates to and from that space as needed. The translation requires intense effort, though, and it's not as automatic as we'd like. If we talk about things without the translation, we state things that are "plainly" untrue, because the algebraic relations in Fourier space are false for the "real space" where the differential equations apply. But thinking in that Ni Fourier space is easier and faster: it's all simple algebra, without having to take integrals or do derivatives or worry about classes of solutions. So, if you want us to tell you how we're thinking in Fourier space, you're not going to like what you hear, until you learn to translate to/from Fourier space for yourself.

I hope this helps make it more clear.

[scorpiomover]

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

Yeah, the problem is that as an INTP, scorpiomover, you're looking for all the thoughts and evidence that you would require in order to even arrive at a conclusion in the first place. That isn't how INTJs store things, and you see the lack of these simple requirements as a severe lack of reasoning capacity with potentially dangerous consequences. As shytiger points out, we can translate our thoughts into acceptable proofs, but that isn't how it's all stored. What is stored is that "X is true", just as you store "Y is true", but our X and your Y are entirely different kinds of entities. X is a dynamic/action truth that cannot be stated easily in words (Ni), while Y is an eternal concrete truth (Si). These are the building blocks we use. Where the disconnect comes in is that you cannot directly use our building blocks to construct our truths. We have to translate them into something more concrete for others to understand. Similarly, we don't reason with your building blocks. Instead, we gradually let the Si facts accumulate and nudge our own understanding to fit with them. Once we get a working internal model, we reason by using that model and gradually refining it as more data is eventually discovered, but the refinements often can't be described with words. When we have a refined model (in which we have "faith", as shytiger alarmingly put it), then we fairly effortlessly use the internal model, and keep another model in parallel which is the "explanation model" of the same thing. Think software plus documentation - the documentation doesn't (and cannot) describe the software 100%, but it's usually enough for other people to work with. Another analogy might be the To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , with which one can translate complicated differential equations into simple algebraic ones. Ni is like thinking totally within that Fourier "space" if you will, and it translates to and from that space as needed. The translation requires intense effort, though, and it's not as automatic as we'd like. If we talk about things without the translation, we state things that are "plainly" untrue, because the algebraic relations in Fourier space are false for the "real space" where the differential equations apply. But thinking in that Ni Fourier space is easier and faster: it's all simple algebra, without having to take integrals or do derivatives or worry about classes of solutions. So, if you want us to tell you how we're thinking in Fourier space, you're not going to like what you hear, until you learn to translate to/from Fourier space for yourself. I hope this helps make it more clear.

Most people process as you wrote. IF they read the documentation, then they understand what the software is supposed to do. Then they can use it. If they have a problem, they can call you, and you can explain to them what they did wrong.

The following might make it more clear, as to why INTPs seem to not "get it":

1) When I read the Math package in Java, all I did was scan. I saw Math.sin( double x). OK. I know sin x from mathematics. So this is a function to compute sin x. We normally use cos and tan together with sin x. So there will probably be a Math.cos(x) and a Math.tan(x). Since Math.sin takes a double, the cos and tan will also take a double. Is there inverse sin? Yes. It's asin(double x). Same for cos and tan. Are there hyperbolic sin, cos and tan functions? There is Math.tanh(x). So yes, and the rest have the same format. Any others? Oh, there is Math.log(x). OK.

That took about 5 seconds to notice, and about 0.1 to calculate.

Oh, there is a Math.log1p(x). What's that? Oh, the documentation says that it's a function that "Returns the natural logarithm of the sum of the argument and 1." Huh? Why would you have a special function to compute log(1+x)? Surely you'd just write Math.log(1+x)! Oh, I remember from maths class, that the Taylor expansion of log x, is impossible to compute, and needs to be computed as log(1+x). So then it makes sense that the calculation of log x is using the Taylor expansion. Don't know yet if it's defined in the code, or if it's written into the hardware of the CPU. Either way, it computes log x by running log1p(x-1). Hmm. Might be useful, if I need to use log(x). Could shave off a few cycles of the code. Not much good for a short piece of code. But for something really data-intensive, it could really make the difference between the processing taking a few days and a few hours. Hmmm. Wonder if I could take data-intensive code using logarithmic calculations down to a few minutes? Now that would REALLY be something.

That took about 1 second to notice, and about 5 seconds to calculate.

I didn't really glance at much of the rest of the documentation. Don't even need to. I know most of it, without reading it.

I do the same with "explanation models". I can spot the key words, and build up an entire structure of what you are explaining in less time than it took for you to write the first word.

2) I see some of the flaws in the "explanation model" in almost the same time as I build up the model. By the time I see the idea in my head, I've already seen some of the problems in linkages between the concepts.

Any more time I spend on it, I'll see more flaws, and more uses for the idea, in countless other ways.

3) I suppose I could just read the documentation and follow it. But my Ti is just so damn fast, that I'm seeing the issues that other people only discover when they're testing the code. I might as well read the documentation for 3 minutes, then sleep for a week, then wake up and write the code in an hour and a half, then go to sleep for a month, and pay someone else to do all the laborious testing. Usually, my Ti is way too strong to even give me a chance to just read without seeing the errors. So in reality, I don't have much of a choice.

I could get stone drunk, and then read the documentation and write the code. That could put my Ti to sleep enough. But I usually have to get so drunk, that I keep making mistakes with my fingers pressing the keyboard. So that's not worth it either.

I could do Yoga for about 10 hours a day. Maybe that would do it. But what for? Just to slow my brain to the speed of a nematode worm? Because that's what it feels like.

I guess it might be worth it, to talk normally enough to get women. But then I'd miss out on all the lovely ideas that my brain is usually coming up with. I almost feel like orgasming every second, over that. Aren't I just giving up many pleasures a day, for one a day? Is it really worth it?

4) When I want to do something with the code, I'll work out how to use it in all sorts of ways, that the programmer never imagined, with way better performance than anyone thought was even possible. However, that means that I push the code to well beyond its designed limits. I am thus better off reading the raw code, than the documentation. The code would probably flummox most people. But not me. I don't think in English. I think in "brain". I translate English to "brain" all the time. For me to translate the code into "brain", is only slightly slower than translating the English, depending on the quality of the code. Bad code takes much longer to process into "brain". As a consequence, reading your "explanation model" and translating it into "brain", is as slow as reading the Fourier transform itself, and translating that into "brain". But if I have the Fourier transform itself, that is an exact representation of the idea, and so I actually understand you much, much better, than reading the "explanation model".

Plus, if I point out the errors in the "explanation model", you'll probably put that down to an error in your translation of the Fourier transform. My Ti twists and turns any model inside and out, almost automatically. It's like I have the idea as an object in my hands, and they are turning it over and over, seeing it from many different directions. I can already see a lot of what has to be from the original Fourier transform, and how it matches and doesn't match the explanation model. I can pick you up on every word you use incorrectly. I don't, because I am not going to hold you to task, for an incomplete explanation, as that would only be useful, if I was trying to teach you how to communicate better, and that is best left for another time, when it is more appropriate. I'm interested in your idea, and if it has anything useful in it. So I'm only raising issues that, from what I can see, would be a problem in the original Fourier transform.

Of course, if you prefer, we can express it as a differential equation, or an atomic statement of propositional logic, or a Socratic debate, or a Zen koan. It's all translated into and from "brain", anyway. I'd just prefer to use whatever is easiest for you to understand our dialogue, and what best works for understanding the concept, and for manipulating it for useful purposes.

Granted, most people wold say that I'm trying to do the impossible. But I was born this way, or at least, I've been doing it for so long, that by the time I was 10, it was second nature to me.

I hope this makes it a bit clearer, what is going on in my head.

[jndiii]

	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 hope this makes it a bit clearer, what is going on in my head.

Actually, it helps quite a bit.

	Most people process as you wrote. IF they read the documentation, then they understand what the software is supposed to do. Then they can use it. If they have a problem, they can call you, and you can explain to them what they did wrong.

Yep. That's why I write that way. If I'm writing for an INTP, I write very differently. (When I wrote physics papers back in the day, I'd be writing in that INTP mode - they seem to own the style manuals for peer-reviewed papers!)

The following might make it more clear, as to why INTPs seem to not "get it": 1) When I read the Math package in Java, all I did was scan. I saw Math.sin( double x). OK. I know sin x from mathematics. So this is a function to compute sin x. We normally use cos and tan together with sin x. So there will probably be a Math.cos(x) and a Math.tan(x). Since Math.sin takes a double, the cos and tan will also take a double. Is there inverse sin? Yes. It's asin(double x). Same for cos and tan. Are there hyperbolic sin, cos and tan functions? There is Math.tanh(x). So yes, and the rest have the same format. Any others? Oh, there is Math.log(x). OK. That took about 5 seconds to notice, and about 0.1 to calculate. Oh, there is a Math.log1p(x). What's that? Oh, the documentation says that it's a function that "Returns the natural logarithm of the sum of the argument and 1." Huh? Why would you have a special function to compute log(1+x)? Surely you'd just write Math.log(1+x)! Oh, I remember from maths class, that the Taylor expansion of log x, is impossible to compute, and needs to be computed as log(1+x). So then it makes sense that the calculation of log x is using the Taylor expansion. Don't know yet if it's defined in the code, or if it's written into the hardware of the CPU. Either way, it computes log x by running log1p(x-1). Hmm. Might be useful, if I need to use log(x). Could shave off a few cycles of the code. Not much good for a short piece of code. But for something really data-intensive, it could really make the difference between the processing taking a few days and a few hours. Hmmm. Wonder if I could take data-intensive code using logarithmic calculations down to a few minutes? Now that would REALLY be something. That took about 1 second to notice, and about 5 seconds to calculate. I didn't really glance at much of the rest of the documentation. Don't even need to. I know most of it, without reading it. I do the same with "explanation models". I can spot the key words, and build up an entire structure of what you are explaining in less time than it took for you to write the first word.

An interesting thing clicked for me linking Nardi's work with what you wrote. It's perhaps the most derogatory thing he says about INTPs, but I think with your perspective it links up what it looks like from inside and outside. He wrote, "Of all types, Ti types show the least interest in listening. ... Male Ti types in particular are likely to listen for only a second or two when someone starts speaking ..."

Perhaps what he is observing here is this same thing that is going on with how you read through documentation: you quickly pick up what you need, and then stop listening (or reading). The few key words described everything for you, and there's nothing left to read or listen for. Does this sound right?

If so, this might be the key weakness of Ti: it's so good at absorbing and categorizing information, that the trade off is a lack of awareness of other information that might be conveyed, perhaps in an unexpected way.

It would also be interesting to measure of this level of listening is different when having an Ne-style discussion of ideas. My hypothesis is that it would be in a rapid-fire way, where Ti listens in for a bit, then stops to start chewing on ideas, but then the discussion offers a new interesting idea, and Ti chews on that ... so, EEG-wise, the listening centers would keep on flashing on and off.

	2) I see some of the flaws in the "explanation model" in almost the same time as I build up the model. By the time I see the idea in my head, I've already seen some of the problems in linkages between the concepts. Any more time I spend on it, I'll see more flaws, and more uses for the idea, in countless other ways.

Yeah, I've had enough INTP friends that I see that happening on the fly.

3) I suppose I could just read the documentation and follow it. But my Ti is just so damn fast, that I'm seeing the issues that other people only discover when they're testing the code. I might as well read the documentation for 3 minutes, then sleep for a week, then wake up and write the code in an hour and a half, then go to sleep for a month, and pay someone else to do all the laborious testing. Usually, my Ti is way too strong to even give me a chance to just read without seeing the errors. So in reality, I don't have much of a choice. I could get stone drunk, and then read the documentation and write the code. That could put my Ti to sleep enough. But I usually have to get so drunk, that I keep making mistakes with my fingers pressing the keyboard. So that's not worth it either. I could do Yoga for about 10 hours a day. Maybe that would do it. But what for? Just to slow my brain to the speed of a nematode worm? Because that's what it feels like. I guess it might be worth it, to talk normally enough to get women. But then I'd miss out on all the lovely ideas that my brain is usually coming up with. I almost feel like orgasming every second, over that. Aren't I just giving up many pleasures a day, for one a day? Is it really worth it?

For what it's worth, I can't stand reading the documentation. I read it and draw a blank, usually, because most pages of anything that thorough has several layers of context to keep track of at once. There's an informal style of documentation I use, mostly for emails and executives, where I explain the topic at a broad level, narrow down the focus to one issue that needs a decision (and possibly a few other sub-decisions), and present a summary of the consequences of each decision. I'm deliberately going for making it as easy as possible for an executive to make a technical decision without having to have the full INT(J/P) understanding of the issue.

4) When I want to do something with the code, I'll work out how to use it in all sorts of ways, that the programmer never imagined, with way better performance than anyone thought was even possible. However, that means that I push the code to well beyond its designed limits. I am thus better off reading the raw code, than the documentation. The code would probably flummox most people. But not me. I don't think in English. I think in "brain". I translate English to "brain" all the time. For me to translate the code into "brain", is only slightly slower than translating the English, depending on the quality of the code. Bad code takes much longer to process into "brain". As a consequence, reading your "explanation model" and translating it into "brain", is as slow as reading the Fourier transform itself, and translating that into "brain". But if I have the Fourier transform itself, that is an exact representation of the idea, and so I actually understand you much, much better, than reading the "explanation model".

Yeah, that's true - but it takes SO LONG to explain, usually. For all the cross-talk between INTP and INTJ, we pick up on each others' ideas and workings pretty darn fast, once we've figured out the translation manual.

Plus, if I point out the errors in the "explanation model", you'll probably put that down to an error in your translation of the Fourier transform. My Ti twists and turns any model inside and out, almost automatically. It's like I have the idea as an object in my hands, and they are turning it over and over, seeing it from many different directions. I can already see a lot of what has to be from the original Fourier transform, and how it matches and doesn't match the explanation model. I can pick you up on every word you use incorrectly. I don't, because I am not going to hold you to task, for an incomplete explanation, as that would only be useful, if I was trying to teach you how to communicate better, and that is best left for another time, when it is more appropriate. I'm interested in your idea, and if it has anything useful in it. So I'm only raising issues that, from what I can see, would be a problem in the original Fourier transform.

This is where most of the INTP/INTJ crosstalk arises, and why INTJs will often get impatient with an INTP. The INTJ wants to start generally and then work towards precision, while the INTP wants to stay precise the whole time. Whereas in your head you're rotating the idea and looking at it from all angles, INTJs are adjusting the focus, resolving to finer and finer detail as needed. Also, the INTJ is focusing on different things.

Interesting analogy here: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The INTJ is focusing on making delta-p small, the INTP is focusing on making delta-x small. After a certain point, you can't focus on one without giving up focus of the other. So crosstalk can happen by INTJs complaining about losing focus of the delta-p (the "meaning") and INTPs complaining about losing focus of the delta-x (the "facts").

What I'm getting at here is that most of the time, the issues aren't in the Fourier transform or the Ti or the Ni, but rather that the Ni-Fi version of "precision" doesn't look like the Ti-Si version.

Of course, if you prefer, we can express it as a differential equation, or an atomic statement of propositional logic, or a Socratic debate, or a Zen koan. It's all translated into and from "brain", anyway. I'd just prefer to use whatever is easiest for you to understand our dialogue, and what best works for understanding the concept, and for manipulating it for useful purposes. Granted, most people wold say that I'm trying to do the impossible. But I was born this way, or at least, I've been doing it for so long, that by the time I was 10, it was second nature to me.

One last thing to point out, INTPs aren't as universally fast as you are at these things. One of my currently typological investigations is trying to see how INTPs and INTJs work out when they aren't good at thinking that fast - that is to say, where they think in the same typical pattern, but processing is slower and perhaps more simplistic. I dealt with world-class physicists for years, and what they do as INTJs or INTPs is way faster and more precise than what I usually see in the software industry.

So all that speed you're complaining about is not, I think, because you are INTP, but because your mind really is that fast. No need to slow down to the speed of the rest of the world; just figure out which facts to identify to those who aren't as fast as you that will help them see what you see.

[shytiger]

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.

3) I suppose I could just read the documentation and follow it. But my Ti is just so damn fast, that I'm seeing the issues that other people only discover when they're testing the code. I might as well read the documentation for 3 minutes, then sleep for a week, then wake up and write the code in an hour and a half, then go to sleep for a month, and pay someone else to do all the laborious testing. Usually, my Ti is way too strong to even give me a chance to just read without seeing the errors. So in reality, I don't have much of a choice. I could get stone drunk, and then read the documentation and write the code. That could put my Ti to sleep enough. But I usually have to get so drunk, that I keep making mistakes with my fingers pressing the keyboard. So that's not worth it either.

Reading documentation seems like a waste of time to me, but I don't think about the system that way. I wouldn't infer that because there is a Math.sin(double x) there is a Math.cos(double x) unless I needed to use cosine. I just have an image in my mind of what I need and I look for how to do what I've already imagined. When I find what I need, I stop looking.

So, for example, I'm doing some GPU software right now. I've never done anything with GPUs before, so I go look at CUDA tutorials, but I don't want to do anything complicated so I just look at the code in the simple examples, and I infer how to do what I want to do. For example, I see that a GPU function has the keyword __global__. I put __global__ in front of all the functions. That doesn't work, so I look for another example and learn that only the kernel function has __global__ and the rest of my functions need __device__. I make the change, it works, and I can go on to the next task.

In my mind all I see is that there is a WAY to run functions on the GPU and that things that run on the GPU can't run on the CPU so there must be a way to tell the compiler where to run things. In hindsight, the __global__ keyword is obviously a function that can be called from the CPU but runs on the GPU while __device__ is called from and runs on the GPU, but that isn't important to me so I didn't infer it initially.

[scorpiomover]

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

An interesting thing clicked for me linking Nardi's work with what you wrote. It's perhaps the most derogatory thing he says about INTPs, but I think with your perspective it links up what it looks like from inside and outside. He wrote, "Of all types, Ti types show the least interest in listening. ... Male Ti types in particular are likely to listen for only a second or two when someone starts speaking ..." Perhaps what he is observing here is this same thing that is going on with how you read through documentation: you quickly pick up what you need, and then stop listening (or reading). The few key words described everything for you, and there's nothing left to read or listen for. Does this sound right?

Ti is a programmer's antivirus. You can't run a GUI, like observing facial expressions, and making eye contact, while scanning for viruses.

So to scan for viruses, you have to switch off the GUI, which means disabling facial expressions and eye contact, making a glazed, far-off-into-space look. Alternatively, you can run the GUI, while saving and quarantining the programs (sentences), to be scanned for viruses later. But saving and quarantining takes up CPU time. So the GUI is slow. Alternatively, you can prioritise the GUI, and just send everything to System.err. But then nothing is retained.

Bugs the shit out of newbies. But anyone who has been using the system, even non-programmers, can see just how great a system it is. Hardly any programming conflicts, not even the weird shit that no-one expects. So anyone who has been using it for a while, would rather screw the GUI, and let it run the way it knows best.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If so, this might be the key weakness of Ti: it's so good at absorbing and categorizing information, that the trade off is a lack of awareness of other information that might be conveyed, perhaps in an unexpected way.

ONE key weakness. There are more.

The trade-off is definitely an issue. It takes time to know when to prioritise the antiviral, and when to prioritise the inputs. I often didn't get it right. But I know a dozen people who have said they would trade everything they have, to be able to do 10% of what I do normally, and the leeway I got from employers is ridiculously in my favour. So even with all of its weaknesses, it still seems to be well worth having.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It would also be interesting to measure of this level of listening is different when having an Ne-style discussion of ideas. My hypothesis is that it would be in a rapid-fire way, where Ti listens in for a bit, then stops to start chewing on ideas, but then the discussion offers a new interesting idea, and Ti chews on that ... so, EEG-wise, the listening centers would keep on flashing on and off.

Ti without Ne = "There is a problem here. Stop." Capiche?

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm deliberately going for making it as easy as possible for an executive to make a technical decision without having to have the full INT(J/P) understanding of the issue.

Sensible.

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

Yeah, that's true - but it takes SO LONG to explain, usually. For all the cross-talk between INTP and INTJ, we pick up on each others' ideas and workings pretty darn fast, once we've figured out the translation manual. This is where most of the INTP/INTJ crosstalk arises, and why INTJs will often get impatient with an INTP. The INTJ wants to start generally and then work towards precision, while the INTP wants to stay precise the whole time. Whereas in your head you're rotating the idea and looking at it from all angles, INTJs are adjusting the focus, resolving to finer and finer detail as needed. Also, the INTJ is focusing on different things. Interesting analogy here: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The INTJ is focusing on making delta-p small, the INTP is focusing on making delta-x small. After a certain point, you can't focus on one without giving up focus of the other. So crosstalk can happen by INTJs complaining about losing focus of the delta-p (the "meaning") and INTPs complaining about losing focus of the delta-x (the "facts"). What I'm getting at here is that most of the time, the issues aren't in the Fourier transform or the Ti or the Ni, but rather that the Ni-Fi version of "precision" doesn't look like the Ti-Si version.

General-speak = manager-speak. Detail-speak = user-speak. INTP "brain" is bytecode.

Ever tried to code a system, using the manager's idea of how the system should work?

Tell us how the business works. Let the users tell us their problems. We'll build the system the way it works best. We can then bolt on any management reports that you care to imagine, and with more options, and way quicker, than you ever thought possible.

Don't bother giving us the Te. Just give us the pure Ni. Describe your impressions. Tell us your problems. We'll give you a solution that you could only dream of, real fast. We'll even give you 6 Te explanations, that almost anyone will buy. You can pick the ones you like most, from that list.

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

One last thing to point out, INTPs aren't as universally fast as you are at these things. One of my currently typological investigations is trying to see how INTPs and INTJs work out when they aren't good at thinking that fast - that is to say, where they think in the same typical pattern, but processing is slower and perhaps more simplistic. I dealt with world-class physicists for years, and what they do as INTJs or INTPs is way faster and more precise than what I usually see in the software industry.

Agreed.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So all that speed you're complaining about is not, I think, because you are INTP, but because your mind really is that fast.

I have strongly suspected that.

Nevertheless, the basic framework should be quite similar for all INTPs.

The 2 main problems are missing out on important Se data, and low Fi drive and ambition. If the INTP is wrong, they normally blow the INTP out of the water. If he's still not listening, he's disengaged. Just tell him that if he doesn't listen, he's getting the sack. If he still doesn't listen, just fire him. Ignore and move on.

	Originally Posted by jndiii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No need to slow down to the speed of the rest of the world; just figure out which facts to identify to those who aren't as fast as you that will help them see what you see.

That's what I am trying to learn.

My main problem seems to be learning the lexicon and syntax. It's different for different MBTI types.

---------- Post added 06-26-2012 at 10:26 PM ----------

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.

Reading documentation seems like a waste of time to me, but I don't think about the system that way. I wouldn't infer that because there is a Math.sin(double x) there is a Math.cos(double x) unless I needed to use cosine. I just have an image in my mind of what I need and I look for how to do what I've already imagined. When I find what I need, I stop looking. So, for example, I'm doing some GPU software right now. I've never done anything with GPUs before, so I go look at CUDA tutorials, but I don't want to do anything complicated so I just look at the code in the simple examples, and I infer how to do what I want to do. For example, I see that a GPU function has the keyword __global__. I put __global__ in front of all the functions. That doesn't work, so I look for another example and learn that only the kernel function has __global__ and the rest of my functions need __device__. I make the change, it works, and I can go on to the next task. In my mind all I see is that there is a WAY to run functions on the GPU and that things that run on the GPU can't run on the CPU so there must be a way to tell the compiler where to run things. In hindsight, the __global__ keyword is obviously a function that can be called from the CPU but runs on the GPU while __device__ is called from and runs on the GPU, but that isn't important to me so I didn't infer it initially.

I get all that. Do things that way myself, a lot of the time. Occasionally, I'll run off on a tangent. But only when I think that I'm not finding the info that I need, and that tangent looks like it will lead me to what I need, to get the job done. Mind you, I've had to deal with a lot more than most INTPs have, and so I've had to become a lot more J-like. Even scored 50% J on my last few tests.

FYI, INTPs understand analogies. If you're dealing with an INTP programmer, using a programming analogy, really helps. If he's a mechanic, a car analogy really helps. Etc.