[Undead Bonzi]

	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.
	What I really meant here is "what constitutes a satisfying level of understanding of a given topic?" I can see that INTPs are always trying to understand SOMETHING, but they jump from topic to topic. Presumably, jumping from one topic to another, they have felt that they have obtained some closure on the previous topic. What triggers that jump?

I guess you missed my answer where I said: 'Everything, all at once.'

INTP's do not consider 'knowing' to be a linear process.

[shytiger]

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

Yes, we call them INTJ's. On a more serious note, your question is very poorly phrase. Define your terms. If an INTP's goal is the act of understanding and they are undertaking this act then they are successfully acomplishing their goal according to their personal measure. Personal satisfaction is subjective and also...personal. What is so hard to understand about that? I don't understand your inability to value ongoing processes. Will you consider your heart a success only when it stops beating?

If I defined my terms, I would not be able to define them later when you back me into a corner. It's a strategy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

I do value ongoing processes. I had to learn how. I am questioning whether INTPs value accomplishment according to external measures like good grades, test scores, publications, awards, etc.

[Undead Bonzi]

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.

If I defined my terms, I would not be able to define them later when you back me into a corner. It's a strategy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I do value ongoing processes. I had to learn how. I am questioning whether INTPs value accomplishment according to external measures like good grades, test scores, publications, awards, etc.

Here is my summation of the argument so far:

You: Some people like chocolate best?!?! How!?!?! I like steak best.

Me: Some people like chocolate best.

You: WHY!?!?! I like steak best.

Me: Different people like different things.

You: WHY!?!?!?! I like steak best. Don't they like steak?

Me: I don't know. Different people like different things. I'm sure they like steak too, they just are not as fixated on it as you.

[shytiger]

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

Here is my summation of the argument so far: You: Some people like chocolate best?!?! How!?!?! I like steak best. Me: Some people like chocolate best. You: WHY!?!?! I like steak best. Me: Different people like different things. You: WHY!?!?!?! I like steak best. Don't they like steak? Me: I don't know. Different people like different things. I'm sure they like steak too, they just are not as fixated on it as you.

Our talking at cross-purposes has been the most interesting aspect. I'm not after logical assertions but objective measurements. My concern is not what is true but how much it is true. In this you have been very helpful. I can see now that INTPs don't just like chocolate. They like it A LOT.

[reckful]

As I discussed at some length in
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, the idea that INTJs are "doers" is often overstated here at INTJf -- typically by INTPs. Compared to INTPs, INTJs are doers. Compared to most other types, INTJs are theorizer/analysts who are more likely to err on the side of neglecting the practical-application side.

The J gives a typical INTJ a drive to closure that exceeds that of a typical INTP. And, in a work setting, an INTJ wants his completed work product to be excellent -- and hopefully somewhat innovative, too -- and excellence is obviously going to include the criterion that, if the product gets put to use, it will accomplish what it was designed to accomplish with flying colors.

But an INTJ isn't necessarily going to care significantly more than an INTP would whether, and to what extent, his excellent work product actually gets used by someone to achieve some practical external-world end. Those concerns mainly implicate I/E and N/S rather than J/P.

Meanwhile, in an INTJ's off hours, the impact of the "drive to closure" should not be exaggerated. I've always loved learning for its own sake. I'm an MBTI dweeb and haven't done any of that reading/discussing/etc. with any practical end in mind. As Keirsey notes, the "more private corners" of an INTJ's home will typically "reflect a series of half-started projects."

shytiger's latest posts seem to suggest that he's only interested in learning about anything as a means to accomplishing something. I'd say that everyone has plenty of occasions where they learn about something not because they're interested in the learning for its own sake, but rather because they need to know the stuff to accomplish something. But when it comes to subjects I have some kind of passionate interest in, that's definitely not the case -- nor does my "drive to closure," in those areas, mean I'm necessarily ever going to feel like I've "learned enough." I wouldn't necessarily disagree that my J may give me a drive to want to feel like I've "mastered" a subject that, as a matter of degree, may make me somewhat more likely than an INTP to study a hobby subject with some degree of thoroughness and feel like I've kind of "arrived" somewhere before moving on to the next hobby subject. But lots of potential areas of interest (e.g., the MBTI) don't really lend themselves to mastery/completion, right? So, again, I think it's a mistake to read too much into the J's drive for closure when it comes to that kind of private knowledge-gathering.

And finally, and typical of INTJs (as Keirsey notes), in the event that I do master something from time to time, what I mainly want to do at that point is... move on to mastering something else! -- rather than spend much time putting my newly acquired mastery to practical use.

[Indubitably]

Bonzi:
You know what he wants to hear, leading him around by the nose like this isn't going to accomplish anything.

Shytiger:

In a nutshell, the answer to your question is literally both yes and no. In a sense, no, we cannot "fail" in any discretely quantifiable fashion, but neither will we ever truly be satisfied with our level of comprehension. I suppose from your perspective it might be better described as a state of perpetual failure. Our understanding is in a constant state of decomposition, everything is falling apart and being rebuilt with each passing thought that is assimilated, but with each cycle our understanding becomes just a little bit more complete, a little bit more refined. And so we derive some measure of satisfaction from each step forward, and in this fashion we make peace with our existence.

We don't move on from a topic because we're "finished" with it, we simply move on because we suspect that there is a more to be gained from pursuing a different path. Occasionally an unhealthy INTP will become obsessed with completion of one particular puzzle, and will relentlessly pursue it at the expense of potentially fruitful progress in many other areas, but usually our focus is an understanding of universe as a conceptual whole. From an outside perspective it may seem as if there is no objective or direction, but quite to the contrary, our objective is singular, and its directive is clear: understand everything. For instance, at this point I am pursuing an education in mathematical physics with the intent to focus on biophysics, but as you may have guessed, this was not always the case. If you were to look at my educational career as separate distinct phases, it would seem like I was all over the place. I've studied, biology, chemistry, physics, maths, and even a little linguistics once upon a time. If you look at it as a whole however there is a definite trend, I began as a bioengineering major, but the biology that I studied simply wasn't fundamental enough to explain things as cohesively as I wanted, so I shifted my focus towards biochemical engineering and biochemistry, but the chemistry was not fundamental enough for me to explain things a cohesively as I wanted, so I changed my major to physics, once I really got knee deep in the physics though, it became clear that even physics alone was not going to satisfy me, and so I shifted my focus to mathematics and its application to physics, and so here I have settled because it is so far the most fundamentally generalizable way I have been able comprehend the universe. Hell, I feel pangs of guilt even when I choose an applied math course at the expense of a "pure" math course, but I'm not quite ready to give up on reality entirely, and so I've settled into a nice cozy biophysical-mathematics equilibrium for the time being.

At any rate, the point is that if you look at any one discipline, it seems as though I just sort of abandoned my goal and left it hanging, but the reality is that no one discipline was ever truly my objective, my true goal has always been absolute abstraction and integration of all knowledge as a cohesive whole, and mathematics just happens to be where that buck stopped.

[Undead Bonzi]

	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.
	Bonzi: You know what he wants to hear, leading him around by the nose like this isn't going to accomplish anything.

Teach a man to fish...

[shytiger]

	Originally Posted by reckful To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	shytiger's latest posts seem to suggest that he's only interested in learning about anything as a means to accomplishing something.

I have a very loose definition of accomplishment. For example, this whole conversation is a means to answer a question, what precisely is the difference between INTJs and INTPs? I have as a goal to answer the question. Accomplishment means having a satisfying answer. It doesn't have to bring me fame or fortune.

[Indubitably]

	Originally Posted by Undead Bonzi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Teach a man to fish...

Shytiger already knows well enough how to fish. What you're doing is teaching him how to fly a kite and hoping that he will get that the two are related via the manner in which one tugs on a string. If he had an interest in learning how to fly kites you might actually get a positive response out of him, but right now his interest is in your fishing technique, so you might as well just pick up a pole or find a new analogy.

[reckful]

	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.
	I have a very loose definition of accomplishment. For example, this whole conversation is a means to answer a question, what precisely is the difference between INTJs and INTPs? I have as a goal to answer the question. Accomplishment means having a satisfying answer. It doesn't have to bring me fame or fortune.

That's more like it! I was reacting to stuff like this --

	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.
	My approach to anything is to answer the questions: "what do I want to accomplish?" and "what do I need to understand in order to accomplish that?" What I am understanding here is that INTPs don't approach learning that way. They simply learn because they enjoy it for its own sake, so how does an INTP choose to learn about one thing versus another?

	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.
	I am questioning whether INTPs value accomplishment according to external measures like good grades, test scores, publications, awards, etc.

-- and I assumed you were probably overstating the "understanding is just a means to some other end" flavor. When you say the goal can simply be to "answer a question," I'd say the INTP's endless quest for understanding can fairly be framed as seeking answers to questions. But there's no end to the questions, right? -- with respect to personality types or any other possible field of knowledge someone might take an interest in.

[shytiger]

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

-- and I assumed you were probably overstating the "understanding is just a means to some other end" flavor. When you say the goal can simply be to "answer a question," I'd say the INTP's endless quest for understanding can fairly be framed as seeking answers to questions. But there's no end to the questions, right? -- with respect to personality types or any other possible field of knowledge someone might take an interest in.

My thought is that INTPs don't always know what the questions are till they find the answers to them.

[Undead Bonzi]

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.

Shytiger already knows well enough how to fish. What you're doing is teaching him how to fly a kite and hoping that he will get that the two are related via the manner in which one tugs on a string. If he had an interest in learning how to fly kites you might actually get a positive response out of him, but right now his interest is in your fishing technique, so you might as well just pick up a pole or find a new analogy.

Actually I was going for:

Teach a man to fish...and he will use it as an excuse to drink beer all day. Give a man a fish...and he will use beer to make a tasty batter in which to fry the fish. Either way, the answer is beer. Don't know how everyone is missing that.

[JS0000]

Another possible factor: I'm extremely competitive. I want to be the best at everything I set my mind to. INTPs do not seem to have that drive.

[rogozie01]

An interesting question, i have a friend who is INTP and they are, indeed very siilsr to me, in my opinion they did less well academically but i'm not sure if this links.

[xenu12]

	Originally Posted by Zombicide To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Somehow I feel as though I'm annexing Austria. . .j/k but the differences between the two types are kind of arbitrary and probably generally alternate. Many question whether the two are even different types. I receive a consistent J but somehow the description for either J or P apply to me equally. I'd say the difference is like the difference between one INTJ and another. Anyway, good question.

1 post in and its already an amazing answer. ive been diagnosed by friends as intp but just took an online test and it said intj. i think the two are too similar to differentiate although i've spent almost no time looking into it. i agreed with both

[scorpiomover]

I find Js very useful, and very funny.

Most of the time, I find that there is a simple solution to a problem. As a P, my approach is always to start trying to understand it first, and overdo it. So I take a lot more time to do a simple task than most people. The Js in my life just get on with it. So often, it helps me to 'borrow' a little from them. My Js friends find me to be indecisive, take way too long over things, and quite funny for it.

However, on occasion, there is a task where the answers are not obvious. At those times, I find that INTJs come up with an idea on how to solve it, try it, and fail, then try another, and fail, try another, then fail, and so on, until they've run out of ideas, and then sit there, stymied on how to solve the problem, having already spent 4 hours on the problem, with not even a glimmer of a result in sight. I then casually saunter over, to find out what others are so interested in. They tell me that they have a task that is really important, but seems to be impossible. I then just have a look at the problem, and try to understand it, afresh. I often come across an easy mistake, that one would miss if one starts out by taking an approach, but I see, because I am trying not to stick to any one view, and keep my mind open to all possibilities. As a result, I solve the problem in 5 minutes, and often, really easily.

I find this happens so often, that I easily solve the problems my J friends struggle with, that my J friends love to have me around.

---------- Post added 07-03-2011 at 12:25 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by JS0000 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Another possible factor: I'm extremely competitive. I want to be the best at everything I set my mind to. INTPs do not seem to have that drive.

As an INTP, I am competing against myself. I simply want to be the best that I can be at everything, even if I am already the best in that subject, and even if I cannot hope to be the best compared to others.

However, because I am competing against myself, and not others, I don't really care if others know that I am better or worse than they are. Very often, I will deliberately omit mentioning many of my abilities and skills, just so as not to throw it in someone else's face.

However, sometimes, I feel that the truth needs to be revealed. I will take days, weeks, months, even decades, to consider the matter, until I arrive at solid conclusions. At those times, people think that I don't know what I am talking about, until they actually read what I've written and actually think about it, and if it makes sense. Then they start to realise that my points have taken into account every view that is around, and a thousand points that haven't even been mentioned. At that point, people often realise that they are simply way out of their depth.

[BlSH0P]

INTP are better. They are like INTJ's. only they question their decisions alot more.

[Indubitably]

	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 then casually saunter over, to find out what others are so interested in...

Hehehe, yeah, if you think this is entertaining with INTPs, you should see ISTPs do it. There will be a gaggle of extroverted judging function types buzzing around a broken copy machine or something, as they hammer out game plans for who is going to call the repair guy, and argue about procedure, and vie for position as leader of some sort of impromptu copy machine repair comity. ESTJs will be blindly barking orders, INTJs will be furiously scribbling something on a tiny pad as they lie in wait for just the right moment of weakness to tear out the ESTJ's jugular with their teeth, and all the while ENTJs and ESFJs will be cordially gutting each other with smiles and compliments over an argument about the relative importance of efficiency and fairness; and just then, an ISTP will walk over, kick the machine twice, tug on a cord, take a sip of his coffee, then turn and walk away without ever saying word, as the machine whirs to life and starts spitting out copies.

[froyo]

I think what's most confusing between INTJs/INTPs is that INTPs can often type as INTJs. Successful INTPs can't be late to everything and entirely disorganized. When they speak, their ideas can't be whimsical or display too much extraverted intuition. They have to have well thought out ideas similar to what an INTJ would say.

[jndiii]

	Originally Posted by froyo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think what's most confusing between INTJs/INTPs is that INTPs can often type as INTJs. Successful INTPs can't be late to everything and entirely disorganized. When they speak, their ideas can't be whimsical or display too much extraverted intuition. They have to have well thought out ideas similar to what an INTJ would say.

Yeah, this is exactly why it can be tough to tell them apart, because it's more a matter of style than final results. When an INTJ and an INTP are both correct about the same thing, they sound exactly the same, more or less, because they're both talking about objective matters that can be analyzed logically. The path each uses to get to that correct answer is rather different. Check out the banter between the INTJs and INTPs on this thread to see how they approach things ever-so-slightly differently. INTJs can be lazy, INTPs can be responsible; it isn't about stereotypes, but about how each thinks and processes information, how each approaches similar problems in different ways.

The cool thing is that the approaches are mutually beneficial. Just as in scorpiomover's case, where he can walk up and find the logical flaw in the group of INTJ's approach, an INTJ can approach a group of INTP's caught in a logical paradox and solve their problem in an instant by pointing out that they're solving the wrong problem.

And a smart INTJ/INTP will use a combination of both approaches, though the native approach is preferred. When they get stuck, they use the "tricks" of the other's style.

[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.

Yeah, this is exactly why it can be tough to tell them apart, because it's more a matter of style than final results. When an INTJ and an INTP are both correct about the same thing, they sound exactly the same, more or less, because they're both talking about objective matters that can be analyzed logically. The path each uses to get to that correct answer is rather different. Check out the banter between the INTJs and INTPs on this thread to see how they approach things ever-so-slightly differently. INTJs can be lazy, INTPs can be responsible; it isn't about stereotypes, but about how each thinks and processes information, how each approaches similar problems in different ways. The cool thing is that the approaches are mutually beneficial. Just as in scorpiomover's case, where he can walk up and find the logical flaw in the group of INTJ's approach, an INTJ can approach a group of INTP's caught in a logical paradox and solve their problem in an instant by pointing out that they're solving the wrong problem. And a smart INTJ/INTP will use a combination of both approaches, though the native approach is preferred. When they get stuck, they use the "tricks" of the other's style.

I think the main problem that INTPs face in this respect is that we are pretty much always solving the same problem, because we think the universe itself is one giant problem, and everything else is just a piece of the puzzle. You don't always have to reinvent the wheel just to make something roll though; INTJs can see it, INTPs that have already reinvented the wheel can see it, but INTPs who haven't reinvented the wheel are in very real danger of becoming obsessively fixated on finding a mathematically rigorous treatment of what it means for something to be "round". I've had the same problem when trying to work with INTPs myself; you try to tell them, "you know, if you would just accept this quantity and that dimension as given boundary conditions to the problem rather than theoretical constructs requiring rigorous analytical decomposition, you could solve this similar but much easier problem and be done with it in half the time", but they just plain don't want to hear it. For many INTPs, it takes a lot of work to get to a point in life where they can just sort of let go of a problem and shift gears like that, so having an NTJ around to occasionally remind us that "no, really, it is in fact possible to focus your problem solving skills on something other than integrating each and every phenomenon you encounter into a grand unified theory of everything" can go a long way towards helping us to develop a dimension of flexibility that for many INTPs is sorely lacking.

[scorpiomover]

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 the main problem that INTPs face in this respect is that we are pretty much always solving the same problem, because we think the universe itself is one giant problem, and everything else is just a piece of the puzzle. You don't always have to reinvent the wheel just to make something roll though; INTJs can see it, INTPs that have already reinvented the wheel can see it, but INTPs who haven't reinvented the wheel are in very real danger of becoming obsessively fixated on finding a mathematically rigorous treatment of what it means for something to be "round". I've had the same problem when trying to work with INTPs myself; you try to tell them, "you know, if you would just accept this quantity and that dimension as given boundary conditions to the problem rather than theoretical constructs requiring rigorous analytical decomposition, you could solve this similar but much easier problem and be done with it in half the time", but they just plain don't want to hear it. For many INTPs, it takes a lot of work to get to a point in life where they can just sort of let go of a problem and shift gears like that, so having an NTJ around to occasionally remind us that "no, really, it is in fact possible to focus your problem solving skills on something other than integrating each and every phenomenon you encounter into a grand unified theory of everything" can go a long way towards helping us to develop a dimension of flexibility that for many INTPs is sorely lacking.

INTPs are willing to do things other ways, such as the INTJ way, because they are so flexible. The only issue they have, is if it makes sense to do so, or not. As long as they are given reasons to do so, they will. If you give them the reasons that INTJs prefer to do things the way they do, and those reasons make sense in the situation, INTPs will happily agree.

Generally, INTPs are perceivers, and so are willing to change themselves to suit the world. As NTPs, they are willing to change their thinking, their whole way of seeing the world, in order to accomodate new information from the world, which leads them to want to entirely re-write a theory, just to fit one new fact in.

INTJs are judgers, and so prefer to stick with their current way of doing things, and just work around the problem. This works most of the time. First off, the current view was formulated with some reasoning, and tested, and so has some validity. Changing one's view to suit one situation is not practical. There is every possibility that the new view could be wrong, and so requires much examination and testing. Also, it may take a long time to come up with such a new view, and is often more costly, than just taking a different approach for that one case.

It would be much more efficient, to simply deal with a number of cases in this way, but keep a record of them, and then, periodically, to sit down with one's list of facts, and then see if they are all special cases of the general theory, or if a new theory might make a lot more sense, that answers all of the facts that fit the old theory, and all of those facts that don't. You get the best of both worlds this way, and a very efficient form of achieving one's results as well.

So, when INTPs are presented with a situation in which the INTJ approach will work better, it is much better to explain to them the general reasons why it is better to generally take the INTJ approach, but make a list of those tasks and issues, and then periodically to read one's list, and update one's general theory accordingly.

I used to try to re-invent the wheel constantly. It was one of the things that some employers complained about me.

An IT boss of mine explained to me, why, when he wanted me to do a new report, to just copy the code, and make the changes where necessary. I wanted to generalise a report function, and then to keep changing it for each new report, so it could work for all reports. I thought my way was more efficient. He agreed with me that my way sounded more efficient. However, he explained that what is most important, is to ensure that each report works. Making everything run from a general report function, would mean that if it failed, then ALL the reports could fail. So, if I changed the report function for one report, I would have to test it for ALL the reports, all over again. But if I just duplicated the code, and then altered it for the new report, then I only needed to test that one report, as the other reports had been tested and found satisfactory, and had not changed since then. So my way was not as efficient in practice as his was.

However, he agreed with me, that he did want to upgrade the software, and he would consider making a general report function then, for those reports which were very similar.

I found this approach convinced me to try his way, and, more often than not, it worked.

So I am an example of how a seemingly intransigent INTP can be convinced to change his mind. You just have to lay out the reasons why your approach is more useful, in ways that the INTP can understand. Then, the INTP will examine the idea, and if it makes sense, his conclusion will be to adopt it, and then will change, as is the nature of INTPs.

[reckful]

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.

An IT boss of mine explained to me, why, when he wanted me to do a new report, to just copy the code, and make the changes where necessary. I wanted to generalise a report function, and then to keep changing it for each new report, so it could work for all reports. I thought my way was more efficient. He agreed with me that my way sounded more efficient. However, he explained that what is most important, is to ensure that each report works. Making everything run from a general report function, would mean that if it failed, then ALL the reports could fail. So, if I changed the report function for one report, I would have to test it for ALL the reports, all over again. But if I just duplicated the code, and then altered it for the new report, then I only needed to test that one report, as the other reports had been tested and found satisfactory, and had not changed since then. So my way was not as efficient in practice as his was.

I'm a strong-J INTJ, and I'd say I have a pretty compulsive drive to do exactly what you're describing with code or any other kind of system that's operating in a really inelegant/inefficient way from a long-term perspective even though, just viewing getting the current job done and out the door, grabbing the previous report that's closest to the current job and making quick and dirty changes will take less time. The point, as you know, is that, over the long run, the hours you spend this month creating the generic/template report (or whatever) will often be more than compensated by the total hours saved putting all the future reports together using the generic/multi-option starting point -- and the future reports will be better in multiple ways, too. And it means additional improvements/options can easily be incorporated into the generic version over time by simply copying back changes made for new reports. And so on. You know exactly what I'm talking about, right?

Keirsey talks about this kind of drive for systematization and efficiency being a core drive for all NTs. I don't know that I'd claim that the more outwardly-directed ENTs have the compulsion to quite the same degree as INTs, but I don't think INTJs take much of a back seat to INTPs in that department. INTJs may take deadlines to heart to a greater degree than INTPs, but having to consistently cater to the short term at the expense of the long term drives us nuts, too.

And I'm not disagreeing with your boss, by the way, that sometimes the theoretical efficiency that INTs have a somewhat compulsive drive to seek doesn't turn out to be the most efficient in practice, due to various possible complications. I've certainly been known, for example, to devote more time (sometimes my own uncompensated time) to a generic function-y kind of thing than turned out to be justified by the total time saved by its actual use.

[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.
	INTPs are willing to do things other ways, such as the INTJ way, because they are so flexible. The only issue they have, is if it makes sense to do so, or not. As long as they are given reasons to do so, they will. If you give them the reasons that INTJs prefer to do things the way they do, and those reasons make sense in the situation, INTPs will happily agree.

Easier said than done. One of the most intransigent INTPs I've ever known would say exactly what you say here, and then not budge an inch. He made zero effort to understand why someone might want to do things a different way, and usually had to be forced (be directly ordered by management) to do things in a specific way. The problem is that the NTJ reasons for doing something often don't sound right to NTPs, to the point that it sounds stupid, because it appears to ignore all the details of which the NTP is so keenly aware. On one level, it is ignoring those details, because the NTJ solution is not solving the problem the NTP thinks is there, but that does not make it stupid, just different.

Generally, INTPs are perceivers, and so are willing to change themselves to suit the world. As NTPs, they are willing to change their thinking, their whole way of seeing the world, in order to accomodate new information from the world, which leads them to want to entirely re-write a theory, just to fit one new fact in. INTJs are judgers, and so prefer to stick with their current way of doing things, and just work around the problem. This works most of the time. First off, the current view was formulated with some reasoning, and tested, and so has some validity. Changing one's view to suit one situation is not practical. There is every possibility that the new view could be wrong, and so requires much examination and testing. Also, it may take a long time to come up with such a new view, and is often more costly, than just taking a different approach for that one case.

Heheheheh. That's what it looks like, hmm?

Interestingly, Jungian theory, for which MBTI is derived and still contributes much understanding (official MBTI materials often mention and describe the roles of the functions). In the case of INTJ vs INTP, it is the INTJ, not the INTP, that is the lead perceiver (Ni first, then Te). INTP leads with the Ti judging function.

Ni perceives and re-perceives from many angles, as Te checks each perception against real world data for a good fit. The moment the data change, Ni finds a new solution, optimized for the current moment (the data may change again). Ti instead starts of with a judgment, an internal understanding of the overall logical consistency of the world, even as Ne continuously searches for new ideas to add to one's understanding.

INTPs are completely content to entirely rewrite a theory given a new fact to fit in, but so are INTJs. Inside, where most others don't see, INTJs are continually coming up with theories, checking them against current understanding and throwing most of them out. Both INTJs and INTPs, however, can get "stuck" on a particular theory, because of the tertiary function. For INTJ's, that's Fi: a particular theory might validate a fundamental value, hence the confirmation bias to which INTJs are prone. For INTPs, it's Si: one's theory fits very well with one's internal mapping of the concrete truths of the world. A new concrete truth that doesn't fit in with the prior concrete truths doesn't instigate a new theory, but instead results in a rejection of the new concrete truth: information is lacking, the measurements weren't done right, it's just an assertion from someone who didn't understand what they saw. Einstein, the INTP's INTP, behaved exactly this way towards quantum mechanics. In spite of winning his Nobel for explaining the photoelectric effect in quantum terms, he rejected Bohr's understanding of quantum mechanics, saying that God does not play dice.

So how do I know when an INTJ is openminded? When he displays awareness of his tendency towards confirmation bias and takes measures to avoid it. How do I know when an INTP is openminded? When he displays awareness of his penchant for thinking that everything he's figured out up to this point he got right, and takes measures to give the benefit of the doubt.

It would be much more efficient, to simply deal with a number of cases in this way, but keep a record of them, and then, periodically, to sit down with one's list of facts, and then see if they are all special cases of the general theory, or if a new theory might make a lot more sense, that answers all of the facts that fit the old theory, and all of those facts that don't. You get the best of both worlds this way, and a very efficient form of achieving one's results as well.

This is how science and math work in textbooks. The reality is much messier. Anything that qualifies as modern science is subject to argument and debate, with the facts not necessarily on either side. In the business/software world, it's much the same: while the same general kinds of problems come up, there is usually no one-size-fits all solution, and the only way forward is to keep oneself openminded about possible solutions, but still arguing for the solution that looks best to oneself.

	So, when INTPs are presented with a situation in which the INTJ approach will work better, it is much better to explain to them the general reasons why it is better to generally take the INTJ approach, but make a list of those tasks and issues, and then periodically to read one's list, and update one's general theory accordingly.

Except those reasons don't usually map to the INTP line of thinking. INTJs and INTPs will, in the end, arrive at very similar analyses and solutions, but their paths of getting there are quite different. The reasons that convince an INTJ to arrive at the truth follow one path, and the reasons that convince an INTP will follow another ... and if they only talk about the reasons (and not the ultimate truth), they might not even realize that they've been agreeing the whole time they were arguing. They often argue at cross-purposes.

I used to try to re-invent the wheel constantly. It was one of the things that some employers complained about me. An IT boss of mine explained to me, why, when he wanted me to do a new report, to just copy the code, and make the changes where necessary. I wanted to generalise a report function, and then to keep changing it for each new report, so it could work for all reports. I thought my way was more efficient. He agreed with me that my way sounded more efficient. However, he explained that what is most important, is to ensure that each report works. Making everything run from a general report function, would mean that if it failed, then ALL the reports could fail. So, if I changed the report function for one report, I would have to test it for ALL the reports, all over again. But if I just duplicated the code, and then altered it for the new report, then I only needed to test that one report, as the other reports had been tested and found satisfactory, and had not changed since then. So my way was not as efficient in practice as his was. However, he agreed with me, that he did want to upgrade the software, and he would consider making a general report function then, for those reports which were very similar. I found this approach convinced me to try his way, and, more often than not, it worked. So I am an example of how a seemingly intransigent INTP can be convinced to change his mind. You just have to lay out the reasons why your approach is more useful, in ways that the INTP can understand. Then, the INTP will examine the idea, and if it makes sense, his conclusion will be to adopt it, and then will change, as is the nature of INTPs.

I don't doubt that you were openminded about this to a degree, but your manager followed the pattern that I've learned to deal with INTPs that need things "proven" to them. If I actually try to "prove" that my idea is better, it doesn't work, because it sounds to them like I'm trying to prove their idea wrong. The thing is, whatever INTP idea it is isn't necessarily wrong, it's just inapplicable. So there's an additional step that helps an NTJ type open up the lines of communication: tell the INTP, "Yes, that's a very logical, elegant and efficient design. I see how you've addressed several concerns. <and outline the logic and the concerns>" That makes it clear I'm not trying to disprove anything. THEN they'll listen to the entirely different problem that needs solving.

The word to the wise for you is this: don't assume that INTJs (or other types) are trying to prove you wrong, even if they sound like it. Odds are, they are trying to tell you something very different.

[scorpiomover]

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

I'm a strong-J INTJ, and I'd say I have a pretty compulsive drive to do exactly what you're describing with code or any other kind of system that's operating in a really inelegant/inefficient way from a long-term perspective even though, just viewing getting the current job done and out the door, grabbing the previous report that's closest to the current job and making quick and dirty changes will take less time. The point, as you know, is that, over the long run, the hours you spend this month creating the generic/template report (or whatever) will often be more than compensated by the total hours saved putting all the future reports together using the generic/multi-option starting point -- and the future reports will be better in multiple ways, too. And it means additional improvements/options can easily be incorporated into the generic version over time by simply copying back changes made for new reports. And so on. You know exactly what I'm talking about, right?

Of course INTJs recognise the need for more efficient methods for doing something. Everyone does.

The J/P distinction denotes whether someone is more likely to adapt oneself to the world, or more likely to stick to one's decisions and to get the world to adapt to them. When software already exists, the INTP is more likely to change it to suit new conditions, while the INTJ is more likely to keep the software as is, and to make much smaller adaptations to work with the new conditions. The INTP is more prone to re-invent the wheel, even when it is unnecessary. The INTJ is more prone to avoid adapting the software, even when it is necessary. It's just which option you are more likely to default to, first, before considering doing something that you don't normally do.

---------- Post added 07-05-2011 at 10:49 PM ----------

	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.
	Easier said than done. One of the most intransigent INTPs I've ever known would say exactly what you say here, and then not budge an inch. He made zero effort to understand why someone might want to do things a different way, and usually had to be forced (be directly ordered by management) to do things in a specific way.

He'd be quite normal in the UK.

Are you sure you don't surround yourself with pushovers?

	The problem is that the NTJ reasons for doing something often don't sound right to NTPs, to the point that it sounds stupid, because it appears to ignore all the details of which the NTP is so keenly aware. On one level, it is ignoring those details, because the NTJ solution is not solving the problem the NTP thinks is there, but that does not make it stupid, just different.

True. However, there are many people, who tend to not actually listen in the first place, and just tend to assume that the way they were doing things, is what should be done. These people are called Js. They are called 'Judging', because they are more likely to stick to prior judgements, even when reason dictates to adapt.

There are also Ps, people who are more likely to adapt, even when reason dictates to stick to prior decisions.

There are also people who ride both sides of the fence, and who stick to prior decisions when it makes sense to, and who adapt when it makes sense to. But finding someone who manages to sit so exactly on one side of such a distinction, is rare.

Most people veer to one side or the other, to some degree or another.

Extreme Js have a big problem in understanding others, because as extreme Js, they find it incredibly hard to contemplate anything other than their own decisions. They are locked into their own tiny little world.

They see others who are not so inflexible as wishy-washy, indecisive, and intransigent, even other Js who simply have a different view of life than them. They are very difficult to work with, because they refuse to even consider any view other than their own, and so, everyone else has to work around them, or ignore them.

However, extreme Js are so locked into their little world, that they simply struggle to even understand the rest of the world has a problem with them, even when all the other Js in the world also have a big problem with them. It's a trait of the recidivist criminal, and the alcoholic or drug addict in denial. Before they can actually learn to get on with others, they first have to realise that they have a problem, and to do that, they have to learn to at least see a little bit of someone else's POV, which is their problem in the first place.

Some extreme Js go around completely oblivious to the fact that everyone is avoiding them like the plague, until they are well into their 30s. Some continue in this way well past that, into their 40s, their 50s, or beyond.

It can be extremely difficult for them when they finally wake up, because they suddenly realise that most people have removed their presence and help from them, for decades, simply because they were too intransigent, for no good reason.

A good acid-test for anyone to see if they are too intransigent, is to see what people do when they don't need to be around you, to observe what your work colleagues, friends and family do when they don't have any reason to be with you. When people have a reason they have to be around you, they will put up with the difficulties. When people do not have a reason to be around you, they will only be around you, if they like being around you, because you make their lives easy and enjoyable, and don't make their lives unnecessarily difficult and uncomfortable.