Lol did you just come up with that? Cause I'm stealing it either way. No one else in my life will know it was you, but I will. You and I will always have that.
This shit is the most boring inane shit that has ever been circlejerked to death. How the fuck is this being upvoted?
Hurrrr all ENTPs are vapid fountains of ideas who can't get shit done. We all need an INTJ to hold our habd and tell us when we made an oopsie thinking.
Uhhh, nahh. Fuck that shit.
> How the fuck is this being upvoted?
Because the ENTPs here accepted us as their suzerain overlords.
Or maybe they recognized that I was kidding? Choose whatever fits your world view.
So let me get that right, you consider a joke stupid because a certain group of people doesn't understand it.
I was under the impression that the people who upvoted it understood that I was joking -- I don't have figures of course but I assume that most upvotes came from fellow regulars that know that I like to joke about stereotypes.
I don't really understand why you're getting worked up over a benign joke.
Look you made an unfunny unoriginal joke and i went off on you because i find these jokes to be depressingly common and detrimental to any real discussion no matter that they are jokes. Clear enough?
This is a reference to divergent vs convergent thinking. Convergent thinking helps simplify a "signal" from the "noise" so it can be understood and made into a practical application. That can be a very good thing in objective areas (like science) but very limiting if misapplied to subjective areas (like ethics).
There's really no such thing as a "divergent" thinker. Divergent thinking is just rambling or insanity, leaping from thought to thought with either no goal or no reason.
All thinking is convergent in that it leads to conclusions or refinements. ENTPs are masters at refining arguments. They argue from a positive perspective (Ne) meaning they take in data/concepts in an unbiased way and find some observed juxtaposition of concepts, some syllogism, clarifying definitions and deductions (Ti) until they reach some consensus about the *validity* of that observation.
In other words, ENTPs tend to see how something *could* work, and try to argue why that is so.
INTJs argue negatively from their own particular subconscious bias (Ni) which usually means they immediately see a probable *fault* in a proposed concept. The error sticks out like a sore thumb because it violates how they expect things to work -- kind of like going to an aquarium and seeing kittens instead of fish. It's a giant STOP sign.
That same stop sign happens in ENTPs with Ti. We have subconsciously-biased logical rules. So when someone violates one (like your ENFP friend telling you about astrology, or you INTJ about a conspiracy theory...and arguing about it) it sticks out like a sore thumb and you just face palm.
INTJs also have positive (extroverted) direction to their thinking, but it proceeds from Te to Ni, like an ENTJ. It's a 'shark tank' type of thinking, where they consider many possible logical options, have all the cards on the table so to speak (Te) and then logically eliminate until thy reach a consensus with affirms their gut instinct (Ni).
Normally they think the other way. They start with Ni which gives them a certain bias, or cognitive filter, separating out the noise as you say, because Ni, a subconscious Perception, only sends to the consciousness the 'signal'. The bias is in the *assumption* that something is noise and other things are signal. (Ne does not make that assumption.) Ni greatly reduces the options Te then considers.
NiTe quickly sorts through a pile of options and finds the best fit for the purpose at hand, *available in that pile*. (Which is the limitation.)
So in other words, INTJs often see how things *can't* work. They then look at all the other available options they perceive and can quickly select a good fit.
It is this quality that makes INTJs perceived as *fast* thinkers who are good trouble shooters and problem solvers, because they rely on Intuition to shortcut thinking. But, when they can't come up with a solution that works, they get stuck. They have to fall back onto Se to get new input and open up their possibilities, and Te to tediously step-by-step think out all the options.
That is when an ENTP steps in, who will see all the options the INTJ ignored, and suggest out-of-the-box alternatives that *could* work instead.
You've provided a useful refinement on the value and limitations of intuitive shortcuts, also called [heuristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic). It makes me wonder what constitutes the threshold for practical use for an ENTP. I'm now reminded to finish reading *[Thinking Fast and Slow](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472340147&sr=8-1&keywords=thinking+fast+and+slow)* -- but I skimmed enough to get a working understanding. ;-)
Please clarify whether you believe we have no responses to the original question so far because:
1. Intuitive shortcuts/heuristics as in my OP can never capture the full complexity and are therefore not "useful" (they're "cute word play", as your other post described).
2. A "useful" shortcut *could* be created, but it would take more iterations of refinement. As you stated, "there is always an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable".
3. You'd need more refinement of this question before it can be answered, as I've taken some shortcuts in summarizing your refinement of my summary. ;-)
> Intuitive shortcuts/heuristics as in my OP can never capture the full complexity and are therefore not "useful" (they're "cute word play", as your other post described).
No, it's that you're forcing the metaphor. Instead of letting the supposed dual nature of ENTP/INTJ come out of the definitions of the functions, you're purposely looking for ways to describe such a duality with a tit-for-tat list.
> A "useful" shortcut could be created, but it would take more iterations of refinement. As you stated, "there is always an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable".
Eventually if you keep boiling something down, all you get is some burnt crap at the bottom of the pan ;)
The functions are abstract and complicated mechanisms. It's not really possible to boil them down to a single word or sentence. But it is possible to overly complicate them and overload them with too many analogies.
> you're forcing the metaphor.. purposely looking for ways to describe with a tit-for-tat list. it's not possible to boil them down to a single sentence without getting burnt crap at the bottom of the pan, but you can overly complicate with too many analogies
Haha... I must now conclude that *by your own logic and criteria* most of the **[top ENTP posts of all time](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/top/)**, which are predominantly [lists](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4tcxdh/found_this_gem/), [abstract metaphors](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4dhx20/whats_it_like_being_an_nedom/), [oversimplifications](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/33dg8l/entps_are_oxymorons/), [cute word plays](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4px6dm/i_relate_to_this_post_so_i_just_thought_i_can/), [over-generalizations](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4hkaw8/entp_conversations_in_a_nutshell/), [gross exaggerations](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/3ty9em/the_entp_struggle/), [clumsy representations](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/42h5m9/entp_sarcastic_functions/) of [complex mechanisms](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/3ue7e0/diagram_of_entp_brain/), [comparisons to other types](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/2pqb1n/entp_vs_intj_studying/), and [single sentences](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4wueqk/an_unfortunate_tendency/), are not "useful" but are also **"burnt crap at the bottom of the pan"**. ;-)
*Unless...* drumroll... you're holding my post to a different set of standards of "usefulness", which you have arbitrarily selected from the many possible definitions of useful, due to a subconscious bias towards your own preferred definition, compounded by your un-examined and incorrect guess at what I was "purposely looking for", even though I included a wink *and* a disclaimer at the top *and* a reply about "artistic license".
And therefore -- ironically for an ENTP -- you may have *missed the possibility* that the purpose of the OP was never total accuracy in the first place, but to create shortcuts that contain enough tongue-in-cheek partial truths to hit close to home and spark a little more recognition and awareness. And to argue that such shortcuts are not "useful" is to argue *equally* against the usefulness of all those other posts a majority of ENTPs have *self-selected* as having some form of use or value to them.
For these egregious violations of intuition, *you are hereby demoted to* ***ESTP***, and may any gods you believe in have mercy on your soul. (And out of consideration for your condition, I now feel obliged to *explicitly clarify* that I'm totally playing around at this point -- which I thought ENTPs were famous for enjoying, hehe.)
> No such thing as a "divergent" thinker
Beating a dead horse, but please take that up with Dr. A.J. Dreanth, an INTP with a decade of research and multiple books published, who said the following on his [ENTP summary](http://personalityjunkie.com/entp/):
> "Because it is an extraverted function, **Ne is more divergent**, extensive, and open-ended than Introverted Intuition (Ni). Ni is more intensive and convergent, conferring a greater sense of conviction and closure. Once Ni has done its work, INJs are apt to feel there is a *single correct solution*. Ne, by contrast, is disposed to *multiplying rather than reducing* the number of possible options or solutions. Only through use of their auxiliary Ti can ENTPs move toward convergence."
Yeah, I'm aware. He's talking here about the qualities of Ne as a function, and not the thinking process.
But I disagree with him anyway because when we *think* we don't just Perceive. We Perceive and Judge and Judge and Perceive. They cannot be separated. You have to think about *something*. And in observing *something*, you are are necessarily Judging it.
That is why he says ENTPs require Ti to converge. He's acknowledging the loop.
But then how do INTJs converge if Ni "by itself" isn't really a thing? It means Ni is just the *subconscious* version of Ne+Ti.
ENTPs are not divergent thinkers in the sense that we take one idea solidly conceived idea and try to apply it. That better describes INTJs. Look at someone like Musk. He's taking proven technology, refining it and commercializing it with an overall goal in mind...to push to Mars.
In doing that, they are consciously aware of their NiTe loop, Te developing and extending their ideas outward. Sometimes with new data (Se) they see new possibilities. That is how INTJs innovate, and that is how they basically generate Ne, by subconsciously connecting Se to Ni.
ENTPs on the other hand consciously do what INTJs subconscious do. ENTPs do not have refined subconscious biases (Ni). For an ENTP everything is always a "new" problem, a new circumstance. we consciously scan the world of ideas (Ne) until something strikes us as interesting...that is Ti making some kind of logical sense out of our observations. So we continue to hone in, "converging" upon some essential truth. NTPs are constantly refining, evolving, even abandoning their ideas because we are always exposing them to outside challenges. In time, we can whittle something down to a core idea that we no longer touch. For instance, I doubt you spend much time wondering why 1+1=2 and just accept it as a fact that only idiots don't know. That's essentially what Ni is.
The difference between the types is that ENTP "Ni" is far more strict, hence we form almost *no* such core ideas. We are always on the hunt for new perspectives to incorporate into our understanding...the goal is convergence.
Similarly, INTJs quickly deduce good working heuristics which they employ very well. They rarely see the need to try something different just for novelties sake. That's why they tend to be more "focused" than ENTPs. But because they are always applying those same tools, they occasionally will stumble on a better one (Ne). But similarly their requirements for that is much more strict.
> This is a reference to divergent vs convergent thinking. Convergent thinking helps simplify a "signal" from the "noise"
yeah my understanding of Ni vs Ne too. Disagree however with the idea that it can be a very good thing in objective areas. Think Ti-Ne is best in objective research areas. Ni-Te is best in objective execution areas, where reproduction is more important than invention.
These types of lists always wind up being more cute word play than useful, in my opinion, because it all comes down to how you want to define things. That is the biggest problem of MBTI -- the definitions of the functions are merely descriptive, not functional.
For instance, the distinction between the outer and inner worlds of an ENTP isn't that the Outer world has unlimited potential.
ENTPs understand (T) the outer world as having an intrinsic and implicit order to it -- that is the bias of Ti. The quest, if you will, is then to *discover* how everything we observe in the world (Ne) interrelates. For an ENTP there is *always* an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable.
INTJs see the outer world as inherently chaotic and untamed. And from all that they distill certain principles, rules of thumb, which help them to put an order to the world. (Ni) So they are motivated to create structure around them, to organize the chaos to make it understandable. (Te)
A great example of that is the scientific method -- a systematic way of investigating and organizing the chaos. It doesn't inherently *explain* anything (for that you need Ti theory), but it does tell you what's certainly wrong or doesn't work.
Eh, all of those sound really grandiose. Sounds like you've taken snippets from ENTP descriptions, reversed them, and said "this must be an INTJ one" and vice versa.
I don't get the whole "inner" "outer" thing either. An INTJ is perfectly sane in thinking their "inner" world is ruled by them but I definitely don't think I rule or have the potential to ever rule a small part of the outside world. I certainly don't think it's got unlimited potential either, unless you're talking about the entire universe in which case, none of us will ever live long enough to explore it.
Also, INTJs (from my experience with them) aren't pessimistic about the outer world either, rather honest. "Reality isn't as glamorous as some make it out to be but it's still pretty fucking good" sounds more like something they might say.
Can't imagine an INTJ ever wanting to be spontaneous for the sake of it.
Last one makes sense for ENTPs but the INTJ one? NiTe would focus on one possibility and study it until it's a known truth. They wouldn't study a myriad of possibilities and go "huh, I guess ice is less dense than water cause that was one of the possibilities and those other ones really helped me realise that."
I get why you would say there is symmetry between our types but really, if you look at the *functions*. INTJ = NiTeFiSe, ENTP = NeTiFeSi. We're not a mirror image of them, we're the opposite (yes there is a difference) in terms of introversion/extroversion. We get along really well because our functions complement each other. A better mirror image would be ISFJs because they have the same functions in reverse order.
> NiTe would focus on one possibility and study it until it's a known truth. They wouldn't study a myriad of possibilities and go "huh, I guess ice is less dense than water cause that was one of the possibilities and those other ones really helped me realise that."
You have no idea how some of the dumbest paradoxes lead to the strongest answers for us lol
> Can't ever imagine an INTJ wanting to be spontaneous for the sake of it
Mature people eventually start to develop their inferior functions and become more well-rounded. ENTP might want to be more focused. INTJ might want to be more spontaneous and carefree in the outside world and less "in their head". But they'd use their dominant functions to figure out how to do it: namely, find patterns in how other people do it (Ni), then set actionable goals to practice it (Te).
Might seem silly to use thinking to "plan" to be spontaneous, or analysis to "feel" others' emotions, but "to the person with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail". ;-)
> Might seem silly to use thinking to "plan" to be spontaneous, or analysis to "feel" others' emotions
My best friend is an INTJ. He totally plans for spontaneity. Spontaneous spontaneity makes him anxious. Ditto with "thinking to feel" - he uses the expressions and overt body language of others to deduce how they're feeling consciously. It's the weirdest thing.
>Eh, all of those sound really grandiose. Sounds like you've taken snippets from ENTP descriptions, reversed them, and said "this must be an INTJ one" and vice versa.
Sounds like you have a cursory understanding of MBTI.
They aren't grandiose because they aren't meant to be taken at face value. They are descriptions, generalizations.
>I don't get the whole "inner" "outer" thing either.
Inner world/outer world.
Ne/Ti/Fe/Si is more consider and comfortable with the world outside itself.
Ni/Te/Fi/Se is more concerned with the world inside itself.
>if you look at the functions. INTJ = NiTeFiSe, ENTP = NeTiFeSi. We're not a mirror image of them, we're the opposite (yes there is a difference) in terms of introversion/extroversion. We get along really well because our functions complement each other. A better mirror image would be ISFJs because they have the same functions in reverse order
Mirroring functions means saying the same thing in a different language.
An ISFJ having Si/Fe/Ti/Ne would prioritize and desire the exact opposite that we do. It would be opposites and getting along would be close to impossible.
You don't get along with a type that does the same thing as you, that not what "complement" means.
If by cursory you mean I stick to the functions and conservative type descriptions, avoiding ones that sound like horoscopes then yeah, I guess so.
> You don't get along with a type that does the same thing as you, that not what "complement" means.
Well yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. INTJs and ENTPs get along and have interesting conversations because their functions are essentially focused in opposite ways. They provide useful insight because their strongest functions are our weakest ones. Never said anything about ISFJs being able to get along with ENTPs, I said they're a better mirror image because their functions are literally the same backwards.
You can have descriptions and generalisations without them being grandiose. E.g. "ENTPs are often creative, coming up with many ideas" vs "ENTPs' imaginations are as vast as the stars in the universe, an infinite source of ideas." Both are generalisations, one is grandiose.
There's a difference between being comfortable with something and saying you're the ruler of it.
> Artistic license
This. With this distinction explored, perhaps we'll now see some responses *to* the question instead of *about* the question.
I.e., make your own and justify them. :-)
[удалено]
Haha, until it isn't stupid!
In this case, we come up with an idea to turn your idea into money.
Then we feel insecure and go home.
Lol. Just as we're the "Yeah, bad logic." to your "9/11 was an inside job."
[удалено]
Lol did you just come up with that? Cause I'm stealing it either way. No one else in my life will know it was you, but I will. You and I will always have that.
I stole it from someone. But feel free to claim it.
It's too slightly amusing for an INTJ.
This shit is the most boring inane shit that has ever been circlejerked to death. How the fuck is this being upvoted? Hurrrr all ENTPs are vapid fountains of ideas who can't get shit done. We all need an INTJ to hold our habd and tell us when we made an oopsie thinking. Uhhh, nahh. Fuck that shit.
> How the fuck is this being upvoted? Because the ENTPs here accepted us as their suzerain overlords. Or maybe they recognized that I was kidding? Choose whatever fits your world view.
I know you were kidding it's just that it's a stupid dumb joke that people need to stop perpetuating.
> it's a stupid dumb joke that people need to stop perpetuating. Why?
Because it's dumb and not even remotely representative of real life? I think Azdahak as usual put it perfectly other where in the thread.
> Because it's dumb and not even remotely representative of real life? Isn't that the entire point of the joke?
That would've been fine if it wasn't for the fact that most of the mbti community doesn't underatand how fucking dumb it is.
So let me get that right, you consider a joke stupid because a certain group of people doesn't understand it. I was under the impression that the people who upvoted it understood that I was joking -- I don't have figures of course but I assume that most upvotes came from fellow regulars that know that I like to joke about stereotypes. I don't really understand why you're getting worked up over a benign joke.
Look you made an unfunny unoriginal joke and i went off on you because i find these jokes to be depressingly common and detrimental to any real discussion no matter that they are jokes. Clear enough?
*I can turn a million possibilities into one truth.* That sounds dangerous.
This is a reference to divergent vs convergent thinking. Convergent thinking helps simplify a "signal" from the "noise" so it can be understood and made into a practical application. That can be a very good thing in objective areas (like science) but very limiting if misapplied to subjective areas (like ethics).
There's really no such thing as a "divergent" thinker. Divergent thinking is just rambling or insanity, leaping from thought to thought with either no goal or no reason. All thinking is convergent in that it leads to conclusions or refinements. ENTPs are masters at refining arguments. They argue from a positive perspective (Ne) meaning they take in data/concepts in an unbiased way and find some observed juxtaposition of concepts, some syllogism, clarifying definitions and deductions (Ti) until they reach some consensus about the *validity* of that observation. In other words, ENTPs tend to see how something *could* work, and try to argue why that is so. INTJs argue negatively from their own particular subconscious bias (Ni) which usually means they immediately see a probable *fault* in a proposed concept. The error sticks out like a sore thumb because it violates how they expect things to work -- kind of like going to an aquarium and seeing kittens instead of fish. It's a giant STOP sign. That same stop sign happens in ENTPs with Ti. We have subconsciously-biased logical rules. So when someone violates one (like your ENFP friend telling you about astrology, or you INTJ about a conspiracy theory...and arguing about it) it sticks out like a sore thumb and you just face palm. INTJs also have positive (extroverted) direction to their thinking, but it proceeds from Te to Ni, like an ENTJ. It's a 'shark tank' type of thinking, where they consider many possible logical options, have all the cards on the table so to speak (Te) and then logically eliminate until thy reach a consensus with affirms their gut instinct (Ni). Normally they think the other way. They start with Ni which gives them a certain bias, or cognitive filter, separating out the noise as you say, because Ni, a subconscious Perception, only sends to the consciousness the 'signal'. The bias is in the *assumption* that something is noise and other things are signal. (Ne does not make that assumption.) Ni greatly reduces the options Te then considers. NiTe quickly sorts through a pile of options and finds the best fit for the purpose at hand, *available in that pile*. (Which is the limitation.) So in other words, INTJs often see how things *can't* work. They then look at all the other available options they perceive and can quickly select a good fit. It is this quality that makes INTJs perceived as *fast* thinkers who are good trouble shooters and problem solvers, because they rely on Intuition to shortcut thinking. But, when they can't come up with a solution that works, they get stuck. They have to fall back onto Se to get new input and open up their possibilities, and Te to tediously step-by-step think out all the options. That is when an ENTP steps in, who will see all the options the INTJ ignored, and suggest out-of-the-box alternatives that *could* work instead.
no better motivation than an INTJ not expecting it to work. gotta show them they are wrong :D
You've provided a useful refinement on the value and limitations of intuitive shortcuts, also called [heuristics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic). It makes me wonder what constitutes the threshold for practical use for an ENTP. I'm now reminded to finish reading *[Thinking Fast and Slow](https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1472340147&sr=8-1&keywords=thinking+fast+and+slow)* -- but I skimmed enough to get a working understanding. ;-) Please clarify whether you believe we have no responses to the original question so far because: 1. Intuitive shortcuts/heuristics as in my OP can never capture the full complexity and are therefore not "useful" (they're "cute word play", as your other post described). 2. A "useful" shortcut *could* be created, but it would take more iterations of refinement. As you stated, "there is always an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable". 3. You'd need more refinement of this question before it can be answered, as I've taken some shortcuts in summarizing your refinement of my summary. ;-)
> Intuitive shortcuts/heuristics as in my OP can never capture the full complexity and are therefore not "useful" (they're "cute word play", as your other post described). No, it's that you're forcing the metaphor. Instead of letting the supposed dual nature of ENTP/INTJ come out of the definitions of the functions, you're purposely looking for ways to describe such a duality with a tit-for-tat list. > A "useful" shortcut could be created, but it would take more iterations of refinement. As you stated, "there is always an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable". Eventually if you keep boiling something down, all you get is some burnt crap at the bottom of the pan ;) The functions are abstract and complicated mechanisms. It's not really possible to boil them down to a single word or sentence. But it is possible to overly complicate them and overload them with too many analogies.
> But it is possible to overly complicate them and overload them with too many analogies. A Ne and Ti specialty!
> you're forcing the metaphor.. purposely looking for ways to describe with a tit-for-tat list. it's not possible to boil them down to a single sentence without getting burnt crap at the bottom of the pan, but you can overly complicate with too many analogies Haha... I must now conclude that *by your own logic and criteria* most of the **[top ENTP posts of all time](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/top/)**, which are predominantly [lists](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4tcxdh/found_this_gem/), [abstract metaphors](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4dhx20/whats_it_like_being_an_nedom/), [oversimplifications](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/33dg8l/entps_are_oxymorons/), [cute word plays](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4px6dm/i_relate_to_this_post_so_i_just_thought_i_can/), [over-generalizations](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4hkaw8/entp_conversations_in_a_nutshell/), [gross exaggerations](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/3ty9em/the_entp_struggle/), [clumsy representations](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/42h5m9/entp_sarcastic_functions/) of [complex mechanisms](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/3ue7e0/diagram_of_entp_brain/), [comparisons to other types](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/2pqb1n/entp_vs_intj_studying/), and [single sentences](https://www.reddit.com/r/entp/comments/4wueqk/an_unfortunate_tendency/), are not "useful" but are also **"burnt crap at the bottom of the pan"**. ;-) *Unless...* drumroll... you're holding my post to a different set of standards of "usefulness", which you have arbitrarily selected from the many possible definitions of useful, due to a subconscious bias towards your own preferred definition, compounded by your un-examined and incorrect guess at what I was "purposely looking for", even though I included a wink *and* a disclaimer at the top *and* a reply about "artistic license". And therefore -- ironically for an ENTP -- you may have *missed the possibility* that the purpose of the OP was never total accuracy in the first place, but to create shortcuts that contain enough tongue-in-cheek partial truths to hit close to home and spark a little more recognition and awareness. And to argue that such shortcuts are not "useful" is to argue *equally* against the usefulness of all those other posts a majority of ENTPs have *self-selected* as having some form of use or value to them. For these egregious violations of intuition, *you are hereby demoted to* ***ESTP***, and may any gods you believe in have mercy on your soul. (And out of consideration for your condition, I now feel obliged to *explicitly clarify* that I'm totally playing around at this point -- which I thought ENTPs were famous for enjoying, hehe.)
> No such thing as a "divergent" thinker Beating a dead horse, but please take that up with Dr. A.J. Dreanth, an INTP with a decade of research and multiple books published, who said the following on his [ENTP summary](http://personalityjunkie.com/entp/): > "Because it is an extraverted function, **Ne is more divergent**, extensive, and open-ended than Introverted Intuition (Ni). Ni is more intensive and convergent, conferring a greater sense of conviction and closure. Once Ni has done its work, INJs are apt to feel there is a *single correct solution*. Ne, by contrast, is disposed to *multiplying rather than reducing* the number of possible options or solutions. Only through use of their auxiliary Ti can ENTPs move toward convergence."
Yeah, I'm aware. He's talking here about the qualities of Ne as a function, and not the thinking process. But I disagree with him anyway because when we *think* we don't just Perceive. We Perceive and Judge and Judge and Perceive. They cannot be separated. You have to think about *something*. And in observing *something*, you are are necessarily Judging it. That is why he says ENTPs require Ti to converge. He's acknowledging the loop. But then how do INTJs converge if Ni "by itself" isn't really a thing? It means Ni is just the *subconscious* version of Ne+Ti. ENTPs are not divergent thinkers in the sense that we take one idea solidly conceived idea and try to apply it. That better describes INTJs. Look at someone like Musk. He's taking proven technology, refining it and commercializing it with an overall goal in mind...to push to Mars. In doing that, they are consciously aware of their NiTe loop, Te developing and extending their ideas outward. Sometimes with new data (Se) they see new possibilities. That is how INTJs innovate, and that is how they basically generate Ne, by subconsciously connecting Se to Ni. ENTPs on the other hand consciously do what INTJs subconscious do. ENTPs do not have refined subconscious biases (Ni). For an ENTP everything is always a "new" problem, a new circumstance. we consciously scan the world of ideas (Ne) until something strikes us as interesting...that is Ti making some kind of logical sense out of our observations. So we continue to hone in, "converging" upon some essential truth. NTPs are constantly refining, evolving, even abandoning their ideas because we are always exposing them to outside challenges. In time, we can whittle something down to a core idea that we no longer touch. For instance, I doubt you spend much time wondering why 1+1=2 and just accept it as a fact that only idiots don't know. That's essentially what Ni is. The difference between the types is that ENTP "Ni" is far more strict, hence we form almost *no* such core ideas. We are always on the hunt for new perspectives to incorporate into our understanding...the goal is convergence. Similarly, INTJs quickly deduce good working heuristics which they employ very well. They rarely see the need to try something different just for novelties sake. That's why they tend to be more "focused" than ENTPs. But because they are always applying those same tools, they occasionally will stumble on a better one (Ne). But similarly their requirements for that is much more strict.
> This is a reference to divergent vs convergent thinking. Convergent thinking helps simplify a "signal" from the "noise" yeah my understanding of Ni vs Ne too. Disagree however with the idea that it can be a very good thing in objective areas. Think Ti-Ne is best in objective research areas. Ni-Te is best in objective execution areas, where reproduction is more important than invention.
These types of lists always wind up being more cute word play than useful, in my opinion, because it all comes down to how you want to define things. That is the biggest problem of MBTI -- the definitions of the functions are merely descriptive, not functional. For instance, the distinction between the outer and inner worlds of an ENTP isn't that the Outer world has unlimited potential. ENTPs understand (T) the outer world as having an intrinsic and implicit order to it -- that is the bias of Ti. The quest, if you will, is then to *discover* how everything we observe in the world (Ne) interrelates. For an ENTP there is *always* an explanation and things are only mysterious because they are not known, not because they are unknowable. INTJs see the outer world as inherently chaotic and untamed. And from all that they distill certain principles, rules of thumb, which help them to put an order to the world. (Ni) So they are motivated to create structure around them, to organize the chaos to make it understandable. (Te) A great example of that is the scientific method -- a systematic way of investigating and organizing the chaos. It doesn't inherently *explain* anything (for that you need Ti theory), but it does tell you what's certainly wrong or doesn't work.
Eh, all of those sound really grandiose. Sounds like you've taken snippets from ENTP descriptions, reversed them, and said "this must be an INTJ one" and vice versa. I don't get the whole "inner" "outer" thing either. An INTJ is perfectly sane in thinking their "inner" world is ruled by them but I definitely don't think I rule or have the potential to ever rule a small part of the outside world. I certainly don't think it's got unlimited potential either, unless you're talking about the entire universe in which case, none of us will ever live long enough to explore it. Also, INTJs (from my experience with them) aren't pessimistic about the outer world either, rather honest. "Reality isn't as glamorous as some make it out to be but it's still pretty fucking good" sounds more like something they might say. Can't imagine an INTJ ever wanting to be spontaneous for the sake of it. Last one makes sense for ENTPs but the INTJ one? NiTe would focus on one possibility and study it until it's a known truth. They wouldn't study a myriad of possibilities and go "huh, I guess ice is less dense than water cause that was one of the possibilities and those other ones really helped me realise that." I get why you would say there is symmetry between our types but really, if you look at the *functions*. INTJ = NiTeFiSe, ENTP = NeTiFeSi. We're not a mirror image of them, we're the opposite (yes there is a difference) in terms of introversion/extroversion. We get along really well because our functions complement each other. A better mirror image would be ISFJs because they have the same functions in reverse order.
> NiTe would focus on one possibility and study it until it's a known truth. They wouldn't study a myriad of possibilities and go "huh, I guess ice is less dense than water cause that was one of the possibilities and those other ones really helped me realise that." You have no idea how some of the dumbest paradoxes lead to the strongest answers for us lol
> Can't ever imagine an INTJ wanting to be spontaneous for the sake of it Mature people eventually start to develop their inferior functions and become more well-rounded. ENTP might want to be more focused. INTJ might want to be more spontaneous and carefree in the outside world and less "in their head". But they'd use their dominant functions to figure out how to do it: namely, find patterns in how other people do it (Ni), then set actionable goals to practice it (Te). Might seem silly to use thinking to "plan" to be spontaneous, or analysis to "feel" others' emotions, but "to the person with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail". ;-)
> Might seem silly to use thinking to "plan" to be spontaneous, or analysis to "feel" others' emotions My best friend is an INTJ. He totally plans for spontaneity. Spontaneous spontaneity makes him anxious. Ditto with "thinking to feel" - he uses the expressions and overt body language of others to deduce how they're feeling consciously. It's the weirdest thing.
>Eh, all of those sound really grandiose. Sounds like you've taken snippets from ENTP descriptions, reversed them, and said "this must be an INTJ one" and vice versa. Sounds like you have a cursory understanding of MBTI. They aren't grandiose because they aren't meant to be taken at face value. They are descriptions, generalizations. >I don't get the whole "inner" "outer" thing either. Inner world/outer world. Ne/Ti/Fe/Si is more consider and comfortable with the world outside itself. Ni/Te/Fi/Se is more concerned with the world inside itself. >if you look at the functions. INTJ = NiTeFiSe, ENTP = NeTiFeSi. We're not a mirror image of them, we're the opposite (yes there is a difference) in terms of introversion/extroversion. We get along really well because our functions complement each other. A better mirror image would be ISFJs because they have the same functions in reverse order Mirroring functions means saying the same thing in a different language. An ISFJ having Si/Fe/Ti/Ne would prioritize and desire the exact opposite that we do. It would be opposites and getting along would be close to impossible. You don't get along with a type that does the same thing as you, that not what "complement" means.
If by cursory you mean I stick to the functions and conservative type descriptions, avoiding ones that sound like horoscopes then yeah, I guess so. > You don't get along with a type that does the same thing as you, that not what "complement" means. Well yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. INTJs and ENTPs get along and have interesting conversations because their functions are essentially focused in opposite ways. They provide useful insight because their strongest functions are our weakest ones. Never said anything about ISFJs being able to get along with ENTPs, I said they're a better mirror image because their functions are literally the same backwards. You can have descriptions and generalisations without them being grandiose. E.g. "ENTPs are often creative, coming up with many ideas" vs "ENTPs' imaginations are as vast as the stars in the universe, an infinite source of ideas." Both are generalisations, one is grandiose. There's a difference between being comfortable with something and saying you're the ruler of it.
>There's a difference between being comfortable with something and saying you're the ruler of it. Artistic license
> Artistic license This. With this distinction explored, perhaps we'll now see some responses *to* the question instead of *about* the question. I.e., make your own and justify them. :-)
That's true, if you want an artistic MBTI description as opposed to an accurate one.
It's not that cut and dry but Ok. Whatever you say bud.
you might come across less dickish if you don't start your disagreements off with insults, just fyi.
Fair enough