[Linesky]

You'd assume an INTJ would be a chiller version of an NTJ because of their primary N collecting things before acting with an executive undertone. However when looking at a learning ENTJ their mind could be open towards the ways in which to execute things. Their Fi is inferior which should make them less one sided when it comes to personal convictions. Although, an INTJ's Fi could be so well developed that they're more in tune with people things, making them more co-operative (from a distance).

Just collecting some impressions... [We don't actually need to reach a conclusion here since there's two sides to a coin & every individual is different.]

What do you think?

[InvisibleJim]

Either or depending on the setting. One is morally more fixed in being the rational idealist. The other is a practical rational who will determinedly follow their own advice in much the same way.

I suppose INTJs are more likely, once ranting out to change their view over time once they have had time to balance out the new data; ENTJs are more likely to take the data in the first pass and consider it there and then (As they are not so rate constrained by Ni).

[Dear Sigmund]

I would say the ENTJ's . Our inclination to get information from people and illicit discussion. We also like a good debate, and would be open to counter arguments.

[dude10000]

I'm deliberately and methodically closed-minded. All ideas are guilty until proven innocent.

INTJs are more likely to be open-minded about crackpot ideas, given they like the elegance of a coherent story. Their minds are centripetal, while ENTJs have centrifugal minds. I'd rather have a diffuse group of propositions in my cognitive set that are all true, or at least empirically tested, than a coherent story that makes no friction with the world as we experience it.

For example-- I have a confirmed INTJ cousin who believes in 911 Truth, perpetual motion machines, and all sorts of gack that makes any sort of mental hygiene impossible. My uncle, another ENTJ, describes the unfortunate beliefs of his benighted son as being an inverse application of Ockham's Razor: the theory that is the most complicated is taken as the most likely to be true.

I know other INTJs who are brilliant, so I'm by no means laying down a law of nature. Crackpottery is just an occupational hazard for INxJs because of the inferior sensing function.

[NiDBiLD]

Open your mind too much and your brain might fall out.

No, really.

If it's empirically proven beyond doubt, there is no point in speculating since the answer is known.

If it's not yet proven, but of a provable nature, it is to be subjected to empirical testing so that the answer can be known.

If it is a logical construct, though not of a provable nature, there is no point in discussing the matter since no conclusion can be reached. If useful - learn and apply. If not - discard.

If it's a matter of opinion that is relevant to reality, see what standpoint has the potential to create the greatest benefit and hold that standpoint until something better shows up.

If it's a matter of opinion and it's not relevant to reality, discard it as useless fluff.

[NiDBiLD]

I have a confirmed INTJ cousin who believes in 911 Truth, perpetual motion machines, and all sorts of gack that makes any sort of mental hygiene impossible.

What about building seven?

I was critical to this at first too, but damn. There is a lot of stuff in the official explaination that just does not match up at all. Like the melting temperature of steel, for example. Unfortunately, the 911 Truth movement is filled up with people who believe that the flesh eating satanic reptilian alien masons from planet X run the entire show. This makes uncovering shady governmental agendas that really exist a lot more difficult, if not impossible, since one has to sift out the bullshit to get anywhere.

Perpetual motion machines are bunk though. Unfortunately.

[entpreter]

I'm going with INTJ. ENTJs may be more socially open-minded, but INTJs are overall more open-minded.

[dude10000]

There is a lot of stuff in the official explaination that just does not match up at all. Like the melting temperature of steel, for example.

So in other words, countless numbers of bombs were installed in the buildings in a population center with 19,000,000 people, without a single person noticing, and hidden from view with magic fairy dust. This is your alternative hypothesis? Really?

And what's funny is that examples provided to show the incoherence of the official story do no such thing. Most of them are truths, but not the kind that matter. For example, some dopey college kids will tell you that jet fuel burns at 825C, while steel melts at 1525C. The steel couldn't have melted, right? But this is true and trivial, given steel loses 50% of its strength at 648C.

It is the pure credulity/lack of skepticism that pisses me off about these arguments. Like, uh, nothing is, um what it seems, man! The wool has been pulled over our eyes!

I'll tell you what-- I'll raise you, and assert that the World Trade Center existed is a conspiracy. There couldn't have been a Flight 93, because there never were buildings known as the World Trade Center! Haven't you heard? We all have been brainwashed to justify war to enrich greedy corporations. It all, like, makes sense, y'know!

One thing is fo sho. Idiocracy is upon us. Run for the hills!

[Munchies]

The only way you could know the answer to this would be to do an observational study on a very large number of a specific type of person in certain situations. And even after that you couldn't know for sure.

You definitely wont get an answer to your scientific question asking random people on the internet. Its just not a very scientific approach lol

[Linesky]

Open your mind too much and your brain might fall out.

No, really.

If it's empirically proven beyond doubt, there is no point in speculating since the answer is known.

If it's not yet proven, but of a provable nature, it is to be subjected to empirical testing so that the answer can be known.

If it is a logical construct, though not of a provable nature, there is no point in discussing the matter since no conclusion can be reached. If useful - learn and apply. If not - discard.

If it's a matter of opinion that is relevant to reality, see what standpoint has the potential to create the greatest benefit and hold that standpoint until something better shows up.

If it's a matter of opinion and it's not relevant to reality, discard it as useless fluff.

I agree/appreciate your input.
I wonder if you just felt like you needed to say that despite my initial post, or if you really read over this part: [We don't actually need to reach a conclusion here since there's two sides to a coin & every individual is different.]