[Tkae]

Can you guys maybe theorize about an INTJ with a low N quotient, almost to the point of being an ISTJ?

What would be different about them compared to more solid INTJ? What would be different about them compared to a solid ISTJ?

Are any of you like this? How do you relate to other INTJ with higher N?



Basically, would you care to map out an N-deficient INTJ and how one might recognize them?

[Grey]

The difference between INTJ and ISTJ is not how 'strong' their N or S is - it's the functions. ISTJs are ordered as Si, Te, Fi, Ne, and INTJs are ordered Ni, Te, Fi, Se. If an INTJ were to have a low usage of their Ni, possibly being overpowered by their lesser functions (for example, I usually test as being higher in Te than Ni in function tests), they could appear to be something of an ENTJ or other, less healthy type at times. Unless you know an INTJ with lesser Ni well, there's nothing to be done that could easily distinguish them from, say, another INTJ, or even an ISTJ.

[Tkae]

The difference between INTJ and ISTJ is not how 'strong' their N or S is - it's the functions. ISTJs are ordered as Si, Te, Fi, Ne, and INTJs are ordered Ni, Te, Fi, Se. If an INTJ were to have a low usage of their Ni, possibly being overpowered by their lesser functions (for example, I usually test as being higher in Te than Ni in function tests), they could appear to be something of an ENTJ or other, less healthy type at times. Unless you know an INTJ with lesser Ni well, there's nothing to be done that could easily distinguish them from, say, another INTJ, or even an ISTJ.

That wasn't at all my question.

I know they're different.

This is an experiment in how they're different.

Think outside the box for a moment.

Let's assume, using our imagination that N and S were on some kind of scale, ranging from left and right. Much like the one in my signature.

How would their functions change as the slider moved left or right on the scale between N and S?

How would, say, an INTJ who scored with a 55% N and a 45% S be different from someone who scored a 75% N and 25% S?

[Grey]

S over N, more concrete, less abstract.

N over S, more abstract, less concrete.

Moving along this imaginary slider.

Point being, I addressed your question as an actual example. Excuse my lack of 'imagination' in replying.

Should one INTJ have a higher NI function over another, however, it's safe to say it would emerge in subtle ways. Ni is not a very outward function to begin with, and it would take a lot to notice, as I said before. There's not much else to say, if you're going to address merely on a 'slider' theory.

[InvisibleJim]

That wasn't at all my question.

I know they're different.

This is an experiment in how they're different.

Think outside the box for a moment.

Let's assume, using our imagination that N and S were on some kind of scale, ranging from left and right. Much like the one in my signature.

How would their functions change as the slider moved left or right on the scale between N and S?

How would, say, an INTJ who scored with a 55% N and a 45% S be different from someone who scored a 75% N and 25% S?

I understand your example; but it doesnt exactly work that way :) have a read through cognitive types .com

[knght990]

Brutal! Finish Him!

j/k, i think my age is showing again.

[Tkae]

Fine, forget it then.

[Grey]

Our intention was not to attack your idea - mine was not, at least - and you appear to be taking it that way. It's an interesting idea; however, it requires a suspension of knowledge of how the current system works to opt for another, simplified one. There's no quite easy way to explore such a thing. My second reply may have been hasty, but I perceived your post as mocking. Whether or not that is true is your own knowledge.

That shouldn't discourage your idea. Perhaps try to change it or rephrase it (again) in different terms?

[InvisibleJim]

Fine, forget it then.

Oh. Don't be sad, call us prats instead. We didn't mean it that way.

[knght990]

Tkae, i was joking. Remember i have no social skills.
For example, i could suggest, does cognitive process sound like a martial art? The moves could be to out word someone or use telekinesis. But thats me when im being silly.

To answer your question, though i am wholly unqualified to even consider the question rationally or reasonably since i have absolutely no background in the area:
I would compare:
S - learns through touch taste sound etc and focus on the real here and now. If they flip a switch and a light turns on, an S would learn how it worked by physically touching the wires and tracing the circuit. Red button unsafe.
N - learns through concept creation. If they flip a switch and a light turns on, they'll understand that the switch is connected to the light somehow but without tracing the circuit and will create rules defining the limitations of switch flipping. Red button safe.

Not entirely sure those examples work.

So if you put someone in the middle of the two, maybe they partially trace a circuit by following the wire and as they are going suddenly realize the process behind how the wire gets to the light but need to continue to be confident with the assumption.
I would think then, that someone near the middle would have a tendency to need to confirm everything they intuit by interacting with it in the real world and out of their minds. Also, they may not be able to fully develop an intuition until they have interacted with it, or may abandon an intuition being satisfied by having touched it.

Of course i am just pulling this all out of my ass.