The Key Differences Between the INTP, the ENTP, the INTJ, the ENTJ

The Key Differences Between the INTP, the ENTP, the INTJ, the ENTJ

+ Reply to Thread
Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 57
Thank Tree135Thanks

This is a discussion on The Key Differences Between the INTP, the ENTP, the INTJ, the ENTJ within the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects forums, part of the Keirsey Temperament Forums category; I have tried to determine and point out only the key differences in terms of our daily lives, jobs, operation ...

  1. #1
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Key Differences between the NT Rationals

    I have tried to determine and point out only the key differences in terms of our daily lives, jobs, operation of thoughts. I have mainly done this because I'm tired of seeing people who claim to be an NT that absolutely show no "major symptoms" of being an NT. Please, stop trying to be the freak - accept who you are. Whether the Idealist, Guardian, Artisan or the Rationals of other category - you have your unique talents that we can not ever completely fathom. So, without further due:

    All NTs (Rationals) share in common:

    • Pragmatic, self-contained, focused on Problem solving.
    • Pride themselves in being: Ingenious, Independent and strong-willed.
    • Trust logic over emotions, yearn for knowledge, prize technology, dream of understanding - the world.


    Now that, those are ticked off as the common ground, we come to the point of differences within the NT rationals.

    The ENTJ (Fieldmarshal):
    • Superleader /commanding
    • Mobilization
    • Coordinator


    "Take building a house, for example. Put a Fieldmarshal in charge of the job and he or she will coordinate all the steps in the operation, hiring a cement contractor to pour the foundation, but also hiring a plumber to setthe water pipes and connect the sewer lines before pouring the slab. Then come the framer, electrician, roofer, drywaller, painter, and cabinet maker,with the ENTJ requiring that the construction follows a logical order so that there is minimum waste of manpower and material resources.

    In just the same way, Fieldmarshals cannot not build organizations, and cannot not push to implement their goals. More than all other types ENTJs are from an early age bent on the exacting and untiring practice of their budding coordinating skills, which enable them to be good at systematizing, arranging priorities, generalizing, summarizing, compiling evidence and at demonstrating their ideas. When in charge of an organization, whether in the military, business, education, or government, ENTJs desire and have the ability to visualize where the organization is going, and they seem unusually able to communicate that vision to others."

    The INTJ (Mastermind):
    • Best Contingency Planner / Best entailment manager.
    • Most efficient from the get-go
    • Most consistent (internal/external)


    "To the INTJ, order is never arbitrary, set in concrete, but can be improved. Thus authority based on degrees, credentials, title, or celebrity does notimpress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. They will adopt ideas only if they are useful, which is to say if they work efficiently toward accomplishing well-defined goals. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don’t, aren’t, no matter who the author is."

    "Masterminds are certain that both internal and external consistency are indispensable in the well-run organization, and if they encounter problems of overlapping functions, duplication of effort, inefficient paper flow, and waste of human and material resources, they are quick to realign operations to the forgotten goal. Remember, their imperative is always cost-effectiveness."

    The ENTP (Inventor):
    • Best Deviser (originator - anything they do is a means to an end)
    • Go-getter (Anything is possible for them)
    • Best Improviser
    • Most "people person" of the NTs
    • Shares best debater title with INTPs between all the personality types


    "Good at functional analysis, Inventors are keen judges of the pragmatics of both social and technological organization, and often become expert at improving relationships between means and ends. Where the INTP Architect sees design as an end in itself, the Inventor sees design as a means to an end, as a way of devising the instrument that works, the prototype that is replicable. To these outgoing Engineers, ideas are valuable when and only when they make possible actions and objects. “It can’t be done” is achallenge to an ENTP and elicits a reaction of “I can do it.” They are not, however, the movers of mountains as are the INTJ Masterminds. Rather, Inventors have faith in their ability to come up with solutions to problems, and they display an extraordinary talent for rising to the demands of even the most impossible situations. Superficially, they resemble ESTP PromoterArtisans with their talent for improvisation and expedient action. But the focus of the Inventors is on competency and a sense of achievement, rather than on the Promoter’s feeling of spontaneity and freedom of action."

    "ENTPs can succeed in a variety of occupations, as long as the job does not involve too much humdrum routine, at which point they become restless.They are usually outstanding teachers, continuously devising new and intriguing ways to get their students involved in learning. They make good leaders on innovative projects that test their ingenuity. And they are skilled at engineering human relationships and human systems, quickly grasping the politics of institutions and always aiming to understand the people within the system rather than to judge them. Indeed, they are non-directive in their handling of others, and will take charge of activities only when forced to by circumstance."

    The INTP (Architect):
    • Best Thinker/Designer/Analyzer/Strategic NT
    • Shares best debater title with ENTPs between all the personality types
    • Most Reserved & Calm of ALL the NTs
    • The Chameleon


    "Architects prize intelligence in themselves and in others, and seem constantly on the lookout for the technological principles and natural laws upon which the real world is structured. The cognitive scanning of INTPs is not global and diffuse like an NF’s; on the contrary, Architects limit their search to only what is relevant to the issue at hand, and thus they seem able to concentrate better than any other type. Architects can also become obsessed with analysis. Once caught up in a thought process, that process seems to have a will of its own, and they persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity. Moreover, once INTPs knowsomething, they remember it. With their grand desire to grasp the laws of unity and diversity, they can be a bit snobbish and may show impatience at times with others less endowed with engineering ability, or less driven. Unfortunately, their pride in their ingenuity can, at times, generate hostility and defensive maneuvers on the part of others.

    Architects exhibit the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies in thought and language instantaneously, and can detect contradictions in statements no matter when or where the statements were made. Only sentences that arecoherent carry weight with them, and thus authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Like the ENTPs, INTPs are devastating in debate or any form of adversarial discussion, their skill in differential analysis giving them an enormous advantage in discrediting their opponents’ arguments and in structuring their own. They regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, no matter who is guilty of them. It is difficult for an INTP to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker’s error, and this makes communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.

    It is hard for some types to understand these terse, observant Engineers because of their complex and technical speech and their avoidance of redundancy. However, they can be excellent teachers, particularly for advanced students, although here again they rarely enjoy much popularity, for they can be hard taskmasters. They are not good at clerical jobs and are impatient with routine details. They prefer to work quietly, without interruption,and often alone. They are inclined to be shy except when with close friends, and their reserve is difficult to penetrate. For all these reasons, INTPs are often seen as difficult to know, and are seldom perceived at their true level of competency. If an organization is to use their talents effectively, Architects must be given an efficient support staff who can capture their ideas as they emerge and before they lose interest and turn to another idea."

    True credits go to Dr. David Keirsey. This is merely a compilation.

    Update: I decided to update in regards to the arguments in this thread. One of the most striking argument here -for me, was the problem of using Temperaments as a testing method.

    There are NO FREE web based test for temperaments. They are however USED by ALL BANKS, ALL MAJOR institutes, CORPORATIONS along with variation of Myers or the MBTI.

    So, please use this sorter, be honest - to you. The only available one from Keirsey's book. You can also pay for it - in keirsey's site. Suit yourself.

    There are 70 questions as well as the rules of calculating the answers - pretty simple actually. Scribd should let you download it.

    The Keirsey Temperament Sorter"
    Last edited by Mark Novbett; 04-03-2012 at 08:08 PM.
    Psychosmurf, Wh1zkey, Wasp and 9 others thanked this post.



  2. #2
    INTP - The Thinkers

    ...

    I agree for the most part and its pretty accurate, but I want to really know the key differences between an ENTJ and an INTJ. They both seem to be great leaders, but is there a clear distinction? Also, INTJs are the strategists - using their Ni expertise to get ideas and Te to apply them to situations. INTPs are the analytists - using Ne to observe ideas and organize, deduce and arrange with details using Si and Ti. ENTPs are the inventors - using Ne to think of brand new ideas and Ti to think of generally how to implement an idea.

    These are all innate in all circumstances for these types. I want to know the ENTJ more.

  3. #3
    INTP - The Thinkers

    just keeping in mind that extroversion/introversion isn't really describing how we socialize-
    ENTJ is more of the doer-- organizing people, leading (external world). The INTJ is more in his/her head, planning
    same with ENTP/INTP -- The ENTP is out inventing real things in the world, the INTP is designing them in his/her head
    possiBri and L thanked this post.

  4. #4
    ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers


    Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.

    That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.

    ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.

    INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.

    INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.

    ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.
    GuruOfReason, Naqsh, possiBri and 15 others thanked this post.

  5. #5
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
    Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.

    That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.

    ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.

    INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.

    INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.

    ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.
    No, these are taken from his book: Please Understand Me II. No, he was not short sighted nor are they descriptions of different personalities. If he was, so was Plato, Aristotle, Galen. And everything we know about personalities and character types comes from those three great ones.

    The problem with MBTI or Myers's idea is that it thinks of the different spectrum of the personality acting differently for different people and acting independently of each other . For example, Fe independent of the TI function. I must disagree. you must think of personality as a tree. one branch leading to another. NONE, not even a single one what so ever of the functions are completely independent of each other. if I must say, Myers's idea - and your's here - is the one that is short sighted. People are more COMPLEX than that.


    These dominant functions you speak of - these all come depended on situations and pre-disposed temperaments (in Keirsey's words). Each and every single one of us uses different functions, some are definitely more dominant -but the situations make it so. People are not machines, you CAN NOT at all cost, classify people as machines i.e. Part A goes here, part B goes there. No - we inter mingle with everything.

    Let's see what Keirsey has to say about what you just said. And why exactly is he right about defining and explaining the characteristic and temperament of each types - way more to the point than Myers' selective approach.


    Plato’s Rationals, Aristotle’s Dialecticals, Myers’s NTs, whatever their
    name, have something very important in common with the Idealists and
    Artisans, and little in common with the Guardians. With the Idealists they
    share a predominantly abstract manner of communicating their messages,
    and with the Artisans a predominantly
    utilitarian manner of implementing
    their goals. Of necessity we communicate
    messages with words, and
    implement goals with tools, and thus
    these two dimensions, word usage and
    tool usage, constitute the underlying
    basis of personality development. As
    shown in the matrix at the side, the
    base of NT personality is their unique
    combination of abstract word usage
    with utilitarian tool usage. It is for
    this reason that I think of Plato’s Rationals as the “Abstract Utilitarians.”
    Since these two dimensions are the bases of personality development, it is
    well that we examine them in some detail.
    Abstract Word Usage
    Abstract words refer to imaginable things, concrete words to observable
    things. Rationals talk little of what is observable and much of what is
    imaginable. They are inclined to speak more of what can be seen only with
    the mind’s eye, conceptual things rather than perceptual things, ideas rather
    than objects. All of us, of course, can observe what is before us as well as
    imagine what is not. But this does not mean that we do both equally. Very
    early in life we begin to exercise one focus of language—observables or
    imaginables—more than the other, and we continue to do so throughout
    life. Like the NFs, the NTs choose the imaginative, conceptual, or inferential
    things to speak of over the observational, perceptual, or experiential.
    In conversation Rationals try to avoid the irrelevant, the trivial, and the
    redundant. They will not waste words, and while they understand that
    some redundancy is necessary they still are reluctant to state the obvious,
    or to repeat themselves on a point, limiting their explanations and definitions
    because they assume that what is obvious to them is obvious to others.


    NTs assume that if they did state the obvious their listeners or readers
    would surely be bored, if not offended. Their tacit assumption is that what
    is obvious to them is obvious to others, and the overly terse and compact
    style of speech that results is hard for others to follow. Because of this
    Rationals sometimes lose their audience and wonder why.

    The basis of coherence in Rational thought and speech is deductive
    inference. This basis has much in common with the inductive inference of
    the Idealists, little in common with the harmonic thought and speech of the
    Artisans, and nothing in common with the associative thought and speech
    of the Guardians. Although inferential, induction requires the so-called
    “intuitive leap,” a leap only dubiously taken by NTs, even when it is
    necessary to get on with their current speculation. On the other hand,
    associative thought and speech requires topic hopping, something NTs
    will only occasionally and reluctantly do, and only as an excursion before
    returning to the unfinished topic. And harmonic thought and speech requires
    selecting and arranging words for the way they sound, a skill not usually
    acquired by Rationals, though some (like Shakespeare) can become masters
    of it when they take it as their province.

    While we cannot observe deductive thought (going from general to
    specific, whole to part), we can observe the language that makes it possible.
    Defining words to limit their usage is a deductive process, so too is arranging
    words in logical order to control coherence, and so too is choosing words
    to control shades of meaning. Thus, the coherence, reference, arrangement,
    and choice of words tend to be done deductively by Rationals.

    Rationals are unusually exacting about definitions. Our words can have
    distinct reference only if we are careful in defining them, and so NTs
    make distinctions, lots of them, most of the time. Indeed, they’re sometimes
    called “nitpickers” and “hairsplitters” by other types. NFs are even affronted
    by NT hairsplitting, bent as they are on erasing the NTs’ finely drawn
    distinctions. But Rationals don’t mind being teased with such names because
    they assume that their distinctions enable them to control arguments and, it
    might be added, enterprises. The way Rationals see it, whoever controls
    categories, controls useful operations. They leave control of other things to
    others.

    Many Rationals are dictionary readers, even specialty dictionaries—anthropology,
    aphorisms, etymology, law, medicine, philosophy, psychology,
    slang. Some spend a good deal of time with their dictionaries, and so are
    aware of definitions and word families, of roots and derivations, of denotations
    and connotations, things the other types are content to gloss over.
    While their word arsenal grows through the years, Rationals also tend
    to enjoy playing with words, finding pleasure in puns and paradoxes. They
    are delighted by comments such as Einstein’s reference to mathematics:
    “The laws of mathematics, as far as they refer to reality, are not certain,
    and as far as they are certain, do not refer to reality.” And the more
    puckish of them are tickled by Disraeli’s retort to Gladstone. Gladstone:

    “You will either die on the gallows or from syphilis.” Disraeli, in instant
    repartee: “Depending on whether I embrace your morals or your wife.”
    Rationals are careful in subjoining one word to another to avoid errors
    of sequence or of category. An obvious sequence error would be to join
    the word ‘meow’ to the word ‘dog’ such as in saying that “The dog’s
    meow is worse than its bite.”

    Everyone minds such obvious errors, but the
    NT, far more than others, is mindful of unnoticed errors of category that
    result in subtle contradiction. For example, the expression ‘disorder leads
    to chaos’ presumes that chaos differs from disorder, when in fact the
    words are synonymous. Chaos cannot follow disorder because it is disorder.
    Errors of category are just as scrupulously avoided by Rationals. For
    example it’s a mistake to say that “there were weeds among the plants”
    because weeds are plants, the latter being the category that weeds belong
    to. NTs frequently note such trivial errors of category in others’ speech,
    but they rarely comment on them. However, let the error occasion contradiction
    in an argument being made, and NTs are compelled by their very
    nature to point out the error.

    Many Rationals are obsessed with speculative enquiry, so their speech
    tends to be laced with assumptions and presuppositions, probabilities and
    possibilities, postulates and premises, hypotheses and theorems. In such
    speech data plays only a supportive and secondary role, as does the merely
    factual. It is this feature of their language—their disinterest in dative and
    factual information—that sets NTs farther away from their concrete cousins,
    the SPs, and their concrete opposites, the SJs. Hegel, the most arrogant of
    the German philosophers, is credited with (and condemned by some for)
    saying “if the facts do not comport with my theory, so much the worse for
    the facts.” Facts, say the NTs, cannot speak for themselves, but must be
    spoken for by those conversant with and observant of the canons of logic.
    Above all else Rationals want to be coherent in their arguments, and so
    they try to make certain that each phrase and clause advances the argument,
    introducing nothing that doesn’t logically belong, and leaving out nothing
    that is logically required. This style produces carefully crafted communications,
    NTs tending to qualify their statements with modifiers such as ‘likely,’
    ‘probably,’ ‘usually,’ ‘occasionally,’ and ‘in some degree.’ Note how concerned
    the great anthropologist James Frazer is with the accuracy of his
    statements in The Golden Bough, and how he qualifies almost everything
    he says, as if he cannot allow himself to overstate his case:
    Now that the theory, which necessarily presented itself to me at first in
    outline, has been worked out in detail, I cannot but feel that in some
    places I may have pushed it too far. If this should prove to have been the
    case, I will readily acknowledge and retract my error as soon as it is
    brought home to me. Meantime my essay may serve its purpose as a first
    attempt to solve a difficult problem, and to bring a variety of scattered
    facts into some sort of order and system.

    Rationals can also become highly technical in their vocabulary. Not
    only will they use an extensive, erudite vocabulary (the speech of William
    F. Buckley, Jr., is a good example), but NTs in emerging scientific or
    technological fields will often develop their own high-tech terminology to
    talk about their theories and inventions—thus the computerese of the 1980s,
    with its esoteric vocabulary of ‘RAM,’ ‘ROM,’ ‘bits,’ ‘bytes,’ and so on.
    The opposite of high-tech speech is small talk, a way of communicating
    in which Rationals are notoriously disinterested. In Shaw’s play Pygmalion,
    Professor Higgins’ mother has learned not to let her famous NT son meet
    her high society friends:

    M r s . H ig g in s : ...I’m serious, Henry. You offend all my friends: they stop
    coming whenever they meet you.
    H ig g in s : Nonsense! I know I have no small talk; but people don’t mind.
    M r s . H ig g in s : Oh! Don’t they? Small talk indeed! What about your large
    talk?...Henry: you are the life of the Royal Society [of Science]; but
    really you’re rather trying on more commonplace occasions.

    Rationals prefer to appear unemotional when they communicate (and
    they can seem rather stiff), trying to minimize body-language, facial expression,
    and other non-verbal qualifiers as much as possible. But when
    they become animated their characteristic hand gestures express their need
    for precision and control. NTs will make one or both hands into claws or
    talons, as if to seize the idea they are discussing. They will also bend their
    fingers and grasp the space in front of them, turning and shaping their
    ideas in the air. They will use their fingers like a calculator, ticking off
    point after point, and they will take small objects at hand (salt and pepper
    shakers, pens and paper weights) and arrange them on a table or desk to
    help map out their ideas. But perhaps the most telling gesture of all is the
    apposition of the thumb against the finger tips, as if the NT is bringing an
    idea or an argument to the finest possible point and is savoring the precision.


    The Strategic Intellect
    Strategy has to do with identifying the ways and means necessary and
    sufficient to achieve a well-defined goal. But not just any goal is of interest
    to Rationals; invariably the goal that Rationals set for themselves is increasing
    the efficiency of systems.
    Some Rationals concern themselves mainly with social systems, like
    families and companies, while others are concerned with organic systems,
    like plants and animals, and still others with mechanical systems, like
    computers and aircraft and automobiles. But no matter what system they’re
    working with, NTs want to increase the efficient operation of that system.
    Other sorts of objectives are of considerably less interest and so are given
    little effort. The way Rationals reach their objective of maximizing efficiency
    in systems is by analyzing systems in search of inefficiency, which is to
    say, they look for error in the order or in the organization of systems.
    Indeed, perhaps the most important thing to understand about the strategic
    intellect is that it is activated by errors found in complex systems. In other
    words, Rationals are ever on the lookout for systemic problems and are
    bent on solving them. They’re problem solvers, one and all.
    The concept of systems was understood and used by only a handful of
    behavioral and physical scientists during the first half of the 20th century.
    Then at mid-century Norbert Wiener wrote his seminal work on what he
    called “cybernetics,” meaning by that term network (‘netics’) governance
    (‘cyber’), that is, network control. He made his concept of cybernetics
    intelligible to those not conversant with systems theory by borrowing the
    term ‘feedback’ from radio technology and using it as a metaphor for
    circular processes in systems. Magorah Maruyama would later say that
    feedback in systems is a matter of “mutually causal processes,” thus distinguishing
    sharply between linear and circular causality. Causality, in the
    view of systems theorists, is always relative to the conditions surrounding
    an event, as the “necessary and sufficient conditions for the occurrence of
    an event.” Rationals, never really having much use for the notion of linear
    causality, now embraced circular causality with enthusiasm and undertook
    the construction and reconstruction of complex systems with renewed vigor.
    I would like to continue on if the above excerpts does not clear your confusion about "personalities".

    By the way, The key difference between Keirsey and Myers is that Myers put together words of the letters to describe each type. Keirsey has done so THROUGH 50 years of testing, OBSERVANCE. Keirsey is an INTP. Please, don't insult our drive. You can not analyze what I can. And take it from me when I say, you can not observe or define what's inside someone's head to a precision as well as observing and defining them by what they "say" and "act". For one, it is preposterous to claim one can observe another's mind.
    GuruOfReason, Zic, Wh1zkey and 2 others thanked this post.

  6. #6
    ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Novbett View Post
    By the way, The key difference between Keirsey and Myers is that Myers put together words of the letters to describe each type. Keirsey has done so THROUGH 50 years of testing, OBSERVANCE. Keirsey is an INTP. Please, don't insult our drive. You can not analyze what I can.
    So, because I disagree with Keirsey, and you think you're the same type, you're taking it personally and feeling insulted? And why can't I analyze what you can?
    Naqsh, possiBri, LotusBlossom and 10 others thanked this post.

  7. #7
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
    Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.

    That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.

    ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.

    INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.

    INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.

    ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.
    I definitely agree with this.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Novbett View Post
    No, he was not short sighted nor are they descriptions of different personalities. If he was, so was Plato, Aristotle, Galen. And everything we know about personalities and character types comes from those three great ones.
    Wow... how can you be so sure? Taking only temperament into consideration leaves out a LOT of other stuff that affects how a personality will manifest — which is, indeed, shortsighted. For example, the cognitive functions aren't even considered, so then you have some general misconceptions of types of the same temperament based on a lack of information. Additionally, the temperaments that Keirsy defined aren't particularly uniform, and it's kinda silly to try and compare an NT to an SP (for example), since you are comparing different aspects — so NTs with a P could likely relate quite a bit to an SP, whereas an NT with a J preference might not, which doesn't really leave room for legitimate comparisons/analysis.

    /2
    Stephen, LotusBlossom, Abraxas and 4 others thanked this post.

  8. #8
    INTP - The Thinkers

    I'm not feeling insulted - I do not feel like you do. I said, not to attempt to insult. I meant so, at least. See, the difference in our thinking? Concrete vs Abstract, right here.
    Wh1zkey thanked this post.

  9. #9
    INTP - The Thinkers

    Cognitive functions come later. They act together, temperament also DEFINES cognitive functions (although not quite to my liking of precision) - but cognitive FUNCTIONS - ARE NOT OBSERVABLE - THUS NOT provable. That is the point.

    What is however, provable is "temperaments". By Observing "what they do" and "what they say". You must be sure, before you set out to claim you are right. I understand I'm in the right path, not because I can give a general description as well as define what who will do at what situation but, how they will do so, almost every single time.

    You can completely pre-define people through Keirsey's implications of their temperaments. And to note here, it is not perfect. It is however better than Myers.

    @possiBri: You are one of the few subjects I've most observed - having a best friend for your kind. What you agreed with up above in the post you quoted - that is defined differently by understanding their lack of impatience. This what is "implied" is understood well enough by all other NT rationals. You are not unique nor specially better at understanding something than another NT rational. yes, due to knack for avoidance and improvisation, you don't always consider all options - not like I do.

    And this is you, MR. ENTP.


    The Inventor [ENTP]
    Inventing is the functional side of engineering, that is, the building of prototypes of devices that work to make systems more efficient. It is so natural for ENTPs to practice devising ingenious gadgets and mechanisms that they start doing it even as young children. And these Inventors get such a kick out of it that they really never stop exercising their inventive talent, though in the workplace they will turn their technological ingenuity to many kinds of systems, social as well as physical and mechanical.

    As a variant of Plato’s Rationals and Aristotle’s Dialecticals, the ENTPs are little different from the other NTs in most respects. Like all the Rationals, they are abstract in their communication and utilitarian in how they implement their goals. They choose to study science, are preoccupied with technology, and work well with systems. Their point of view is pragmatic, skeptical, relativistic, focused on spatial intersections and intervals of time. They base their self-image on being ingenious, autonomous, and resolute. They would if possible be calm, they trust reason, are hungry for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference, and aspire to be wizards of science and technology. Intellectually they are prone to practice strategy far more than diplomacy, tactics, and especially logistics. Further, having a probing or option-minded nature they tend to prefer the Engineer’s informative role over the scheduling Coordinator’s directive role. And owing to their expressiveness and interest in the world at large they prefer the role variant of Inventor over Architect. To visualize ENTP intellectual development consider the following graph depicting the most probable profile of their strategic roles:

    There aren’t many Inventors, say about two percent of the population. They are intensely curious and continuously probe for possibilities, especially concerning complex problems, and they find chaos theory intriguing. Such curiosity can be inspiring to others, who find themselves admiring the Inventor’s insatiable hunger for know-how. ENTPs are also the most reluctant of all the types to do things in a particular manner just because that is the way things have always been done. They characteristically have an eye out for a better way, always on the lookout for new projects, new activities, new procedures. Inventors are confident in the value of their approaches and display a charming capacity to ignore the standard, the traditional, and the authoritative. As a result of this innovative attitude, they often bring fresh, new approaches to their work and their lives.

    Good at functional analysis, Inventors are keen judges of the pragmatics of both social and technological organization, and often become expert at improving relationships between means and ends. Where the INTP Architect
    sees design as an end in itself, the Inventor sees design as a means to an end, as a way of devising the instrument that works, the prototype that is replicable. To these outgoing Engineers, ideas are valuable when and only when they make possible actions and objects. “It can’t be done” is a challenge to an ENTP and elicits a reaction of “I can do it.” They are not, however, the movers of mountains as are the INTJ Masterminds. Rather, Inventors have faith in their ability to come up with solutions to problems, and they display an extraordinary talent for rising to the demands of even the most impossible situations. Superficially, they resemble ESTP Promoter Artisans with their talent for improvisation and expedient action. But the focus of the Inventors is on competency and a sense of achievement, rather than on the Promoter’s feeling of spontaneity and freedom of action.

    Inventors have an entrepreneurial spirit and can cleverly make do with whatever or whoever is at hand, counting on their capability to solve problems as they arise, rather than carefully generating a detailed blueprint in advance. A rough draft is all they need to feel confident and ready to proceed into action. Because of this tendency to depend on their capability and inventiveness, ENTPs may, at times, neglect to prepare themselves adequately for a given task.

    Even after repeated failures in situations where their capability has met with defeat, they will develop ways of avoiding such situations rather than resorting to more thorough preparation. ENTPs can succeed in a variety of occupations, as long as the job does not involve too much humdrum routine, at which point they become restless. They are usually outstanding teachers, continuously devising new and intriguing ways to get their students involved in learning. They make good leaders on innovative projects that test their ingenuity. And they are skilled at engineering human relationships and human systems, quickly grasping the politics of institutions and always aiming to understand the people within the system rather than to judge them. Indeed, they are non-directive in their handling of others, and will take charge of activities only when forced to by circumstance.

    No matter what their occupation, however, Inventors are seldom conformists in the workplace. If their job becomes dull and repetitive, they tend to lose interest and fail to follow through—often to the discomfort of colleagues. To stave off routine, ENTPs will try to outwit the system and use the rules and regulations within the system to give themselves room to innovate. They may even work against the system just for the joy of holding the upper hand. Inventors have also been known to engage in brinkmanship with their superiors, placing their own careers in jeopardy and behaving as if unaware of the consequences. Thus they may create an unnecessary crisis on the job, just to give them an opportunity to come up with a solution—which, more often than not, they succeed in doing.


    Inventors often have a lively circle of friends and are interested in their ideas and activities. They are normally easy-going, seldom critical or nagging. Their good humor and curiosity tend to be contagious, and people seek out their company. ENTPs can be fascinating conversationalists, able to articulate their own complicated ideas and to follow the complex verbalization of others. They may, however, deliberately employ debate tactics to the disadvantage of their opponents, even when the opponents happen to be close associates and valued friends. Versatile and agile of mind, they respond quickly and adeptly to another’s shifting position. Often they are several jumps ahead. Indeed, ENTPs are the most able of all the types to maintain a one-up position with others, while to be taken-in or manipulated
    by another is humiliating to them, offending their pride in being masters of the art of one-upmanship.

    Their home environment also tends to be full of life. They are gregarious, laugh easily and often, and are typically in good humor. Although usually dependable providers of economic necessities, life with ENTPs is at times an adventure, and they can unknowingly navigate the family into dangerous economic waters. Orderliness in the routines of daily living is not apt to inspire them, and they usually solve this problem by letting their mates pick up after them. Inventors like to spar verbally with their loved ones, and if their mates are not intellectually competitive they are likely to find such one-up/one-down transactions somewhat wearying. If the mate is competitive, however, the result might be delightful give-and-take—or, at times, marital conflict.

    Inventors tend to have all sorts of hobbies and to be experts in unexpected areas, but they are not apt to share these hobbies with their mate or children in the sense of teaching them. In fact, Inventors may be very inconsistent in the attention they give to their offspring. Usually, it is feast or famine, wonderful warmth and affection when they are with their children, but also benign neglect when they are engrossed in their many outside interests. In particular, Inventors have little time for the everyday tasks of caring for and disciplining their children, and if possible will leave such domestic details to their mate.
    Wh1zkey thanked this post.

  10. #10
    ISTJ - The Duty Fulfillers


    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Novbett View Post
    I'm not feeling insulted - I do not feel like you do. I said, not to attempt to insult. I meant so, at least. See, the difference in our thinking? Concrete vs Abstract, right here.
    Was there something about my description of the INTP that you disagree with which you interpreted as attempting to insult INTPs, then? And why can't I analyze what you can?

    Our perception differs, yes. I prefer the concrete, you prefer the abstract, but we can each do the other as well. Your judgment is subjective, mine is objective. If you're asking me to read what you meant instead of what you said, you're still going to have to clarify what that was. I'd rather you explain where you were going than follow my own Ne on the matter.
    theflavouroflife, Emerson and LotusBlossom thanked this post.


 

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. *Note* To protect our forum from spam, we require all users to verify their email. We will send you a confirmation email after you've created an account. Be sure to check your "spam" box if you don't receive it in your inbox.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Similar Threads

  1. [ENTJ] Differences between ENTJ and ENTP
    By YourMom in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 06-12-2012, 09:49 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 10:27 AM
  3. Calling all INTP, INTJ, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTP, INFJ, and ISFJ.
    By Ćerulean in forum The Debate Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-15-2011, 12:20 PM
  4. INTJ and INTP Differences
    By king aaron in forum NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-13-2010, 11:27 AM
  5. INTJ's/INTP's/ENTP's/ENTJ's Proving Evidence
    By Rourk in forum NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-07-2009, 03:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:39 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
2014 PersonalityCafe