# NE vs TE ARROGANCE



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

DISCUSS: I found this information on INTJ and INTP arrogance fascinating, I thought the other thread was going off in a tangent with seemingly less objectivity so I decided to make this. 

HOW IS THE ARROGANCE SIMILAR DIFFERENT?
How is the *NiTe* axis? to INTPs or INTJs
How is the *TiNe* axis? to INTPs or INTJs




> An INTP who uses their Extraverted Intuition function in a diminished way is one who perceives information for the sole purpose of feeding Introverted Thinking, rather than taking everything in objectively. They are less concerned with understanding something for the sake of understanding than they are with feeding a piece of data into their Thinking function. Information that is not logical is dismissed as unimportant. They may reject information that is not consistent with their logical view of themselves, or with their understanding of a situation.





> When Introverted iNtuition dominates the INTJ such that the other functions cannot serve their own purposes, we find the INTJ cutting off information that it needs to consider. If the psyche is presented with information that looks anything like something that Introverted iNtuition has processed in the past, it uses Extraverted Thinking to quickly reject that information. The psyche uses Extraverted Thinking to reject the ideas, rather than analyzing the information within its intuitive framework, and therefore reduces the likelihood that the framework will have to be reshaped and redefined.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ANOTHER ONE of this thread?

Seriously, I don't see what there's to discuss...


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LeaT said:


> ANOTHER ONE of this thread?
> 
> Seriously, I don't see what there's to discuss...


Well you guys didn't really talk about the cognitive functions explicitly. And also you seem to be using your Ne to prevent your self from considering new information as it suggest (captain obvious there).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Well you guys didn't really talk about the cognitive functions explicitly. And also you seem to be using your Ne to prevent your self from considering new information as it suggest (captain obvious there).


Well, the whole deal about NTJ/NTP arrogance is kind of exhausted I think. Yes, our cognitive functions can make us appear as arrogant but for slightly different reasons but I don't see how much it is possible to discuss about this subject. 

I know what makes me into an arrogant prick at times in debate, which often occurs if someone breaks my principles and my solution is always trying to correct that person to follow them. Of course doesn't work most of the time, but I try. The solution tends to take the shape of "but your position can't be right because you didn't consider all the data" and then I proceed at presenting new data that contradicts their conclusion. This is particularly annoying to judgers since they are often very certain of their position once they've decided where they stand. 

And judgers do the opposite - they are right because they are right. 

And honestly that's all there is to NTP/NTJ arrogance.

And I honestly think you misunderstand the relationship between NeTi. The problem isn't Ne ignoring new information, that's not how Ne works. The problem is that Ti is a subjective sorting mechanism that sorts out information Ne feeds it based on what feels logical which can cause circular logic because Ti refuses to accept new information from Ne by selectively sorting it out. It can or cannot cause an SiTi spiral also. I've seen it in the past therefore I'm right because there's no way new information could change the outcome.

With NiTe the Te ends up sorting out information to support Ni only. Neither processes are objective if there is lack of communication between the extraverted and introverted function. The equivalent is NiFi which basically becomes you know you're right because you feel that you're right.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

This isn't an old thread.

NeTi's (or TiNe, whatever) arrogance is subtler than that of NiTe (or TeNi). NeTi is backed by Fe, by the way, so that's an advantage because they can blend their arrogance into courtesy very well. (I'm not sure if that statement makes sense). They see a thousand patterns or possible paths and then logically choose a few with Ti. Each path is backed by its own subjective logic.

Ni understands something so deeply, so profoundly that it can't really express how. That's why sometimes Ni is ahead of the times and what a Ni user believes now might be what other people believe later. This is backed by Te which plays out these insights into the NTJ's worldview, backed by Fi, which gives a sense of conviction and personalizes the topic at hand. Because the Fe doesn't blend into the outer world, Te arrogance is more prominent than Ne's.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Amaterasu said:


> This isn't an old thread.
> 
> NeTi's (or TiNe, whatever) arrogance is subtler than that of NiTe (or TeNi). NeTi is backed by Fe, by the way, so that's an advantage because they can blend their arrogance into courtesy very well. (I'm not sure if that statement makes sense). They see a thousand patterns or possible paths and then logically choose a few with Ti. Each path is backed by its own subjective logic.
> 
> Ni understands something so deeply, so profoundly that it can't really express how. That's why sometimes Ni is ahead of the times and what a Ni user believes now might be what other people believe later. This is backed by Te which plays out these insights into the NTJ's worldview, backed by Fi, which gives a sense of conviction and personalizes the topic at hand. Because the Fe doesn't blend into the outer world, Te arrogance is more prominent than Ne's.


The courtesy point was good and in general the TiNe description, but I found the Te argument less clear though I I get the point that Te is quiet explicit.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> The courtesy point was good and in general the TiNe description, but I found the Te argument less clear though I I get the point that Te is quiet explicit.


Perhaps I can explain it clearer?

Ni - gain deep, profound understanding of patterns and ideas

Te - Use understanding to apply knowledge logically and rationally to situation/environment

Fi - Make decisions that mesh with personal values/desires

So the NiTeFi _knows_ something, _does_ it, and is confident because of Fi.

NeTiFe arrogance is more based in "i can out-think you and prove i'm right" whereas NiTeFi seems more like "i'm right, try to prove me otherwise"


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Omg the INTJs and INTPs are so full of themselves.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> Perhaps I can explain it clearer?
> 
> Ni - gain deep, profound understanding of patterns and ideas
> 
> ...


Ni works with Te intimately since we need to balance our subjective perception with external judgement (confirmation in reality), when Ni creates models. Te shapes Ni just with you guys Ne shapes Ti.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Omg the INTJs and INTPs are so full of themselves.


We do live inside our heads you know


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Ni works with Te intimately since we need to balance our subjective perception with external judgement (confirmation in reality), when Ni creates models. Te shapes Ni just with you guys Ne shapes Ti.


I don't think Ne shapes Ti... I'd say Ti shapes Ne. Ne throws us ideas, Ti picks them apart until they're satisfactory, then Ne gets them again and the process repeats.

At least for ENTP's. For INTP's Ne shapes Ti by allowing them to imagine lots of possibilities for a certain topic, which is why they are the "but i've thought of everything!" archetype.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> We do live inside our heads you know


Seems like a strange evolutionary trait.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Seems like a strange evolutionary trait.


evolution is strange enough to look like creationism, nothing about it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> evolution is strange enough to look like creationism, nothing about it makes a lot of sense.


Well either way being able to fold your body into your head is impressive.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> I don't think Ne shapes Ti... I'd say Ti shapes Ne. Ne throws us ideas, Ti picks them apart until they're satisfactory, then Ne gets them again and the process repeats.
> 
> At least for ENTP's. For INTP's Ne shapes Ti by allowing them to imagine lots of possibilities for a certain topic, which is why they are the "but i've thought of everything!" archetype.


Well, I do think Ti as a subjective sorting process intimately backed up by Fi (but hidden). Ne creates a flow of information and Ti sorts it out and creates patterns that make sense instead of being all jumbled and random. I thought of this analogy for Ti a couple of days ago:

You got a hat with a lot of votes. You can put an infinite amount of votes into the hat. This is Ne. But Ti is what picks a vote or a string of votes of the hat. There is no real logic to this than what actually feels right in the end (or appears right). Ergo subjective sorting process.

And I think you're confusing INTJs and INTPs? I thought INTJs were the "but I thought of everything" archetype. INTP is more "but you didn't think of anything" if I push the argument a little far.

Or at least that's my personal understanding of my own debating technique and that of INTJs.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, I do think Ti as a subjective sorting process intimately backed up by Fi (but hidden). Ne creates a flow of information and Ti sorts it out and creates patterns that make sense instead of being all jumbled and random. I thought of this analogy for Ti a couple of days ago:
> 
> You got a hat with a lot of votes. You can put an infinite amount of votes into the hat. This is Ne. But Ti is what picks a vote or a string of votes of the hat. There is no real logic to this than what actually feels right in the end (or appears right). Ergo subjective sorting process.
> 
> ...


No we are more like "does the model correlate with external reality of not" since we iterate our models till Te fully accepts it. The "but I thought of everything line" is somewhat inferior reasoning though I think the INTJ would be having trouble "translating" his model to others if that ever happened. Ni's subjective nature less "organised"/ready for presentation/or "translation" than Ti, we have explaining things to others which we have intimately analysed.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> No we are more like "does the model correlate with external reality of not" since we iterate our models till Te fully accepts it. The "but I thought of everything line" is somewhat inferior reasoning though I think the INTJ would be having trouble "translating" his model to others if that ever happened. Ni's subjective nature less "organised"/ready for presentation/or "translation" than Ti, we have explaining things to others which we have intimately analysed.


Of course archetypes are never going to truly reflect reality.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Well, I do think Ti as a subjective sorting process intimately backed up by Fi (but hidden). Ne creates a flow of information and Ti sorts it out and creates patterns that make sense instead of being all jumbled and random. I thought of this analogy for Ti a couple of days ago:
> 
> You got a hat with a lot of votes. You can put an infinite amount of votes into the hat. This is Ne. But Ti is what picks a vote or a string of votes of the hat. There is no real logic to this than what actually feels right in the end (or appears right). Ergo subjective sorting process.
> 
> ...


well INTx's debate by creating and defending a position that is as objectively defensible as possible and then logically excluding all possibilities except theirs while ENTx's sell an idea using reason and logic.

I can see what you mean by Ti being backed up by a hidden Fi. I've struggled with understanding that Ti is just as subjective as Fi because at first glance, that doesn't seem to make much sense; Ti is using a set of logical rules to make decisions (holy shit, correct semicolon usage!). But that set of rules is something each person decides on, using their Fi to come to conclusions about that list of laws. Interesting. 

I've always seen the difference between INTP debating and INTJ debating as this: INTP's will take each point made by their opponent, explain that they've already considered that and why it doesn't work compared to their position while INTJ's are more arrogant? not really the word I'm looking for but it will have to do. _Your_ idea couldn't possibly be right, because the INTJ didn't think of it. I guess INTP's are better at explaining their "i've thought of everything" position (TiNe vs NiTe)


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Of course archetypes are never going to truly reflect reality.


well perception is irrational


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> well INTx's debate by creating and defending a position that is as objectively defensible as possible and then logically excluding all possibilities except theirs while ENTx's sell an idea using reason and logic.


Selling an idea? Can you explain that? 



> I can see what you mean by Ti being backed up by a hidden Fi. I've struggled with understanding that Ti is just as subjective as Fi because at first glance, that doesn't seem to make much sense; Ti is using a set of logical rules to make decisions (holy shit, correct semicolon usage!). But that set of rules is something each person decides on, using their Fi to come to conclusions about that list of laws. Interesting.


Exactly, which is why INTP logic can be as subjective as the INTJ if the INTP has decided on what feels logical already and dismisses new information Ne feeds the Ti because Ti is currently comfortable with the conclusion it arrived at. It becomes even more confusing once you develop your Fi a bit. Sometimes in debate I can use Ti and Fi at the same time if someone broke my values AND principles. It's an utter mess. 



> I've always seen the difference between INTP debating and INTJ debating as this: INTP's will take each point made by their opponent, explain that they've already considered that and why it doesn't work compared to their position while INTJ's are more arrogant? not really the word I'm looking for but it will have to do. _Your_ idea couldn't possibly be right, because the INTJ didn't think of it. I guess INTP's are better at explaining their "i've thought of everything" position (TiNe vs NiTe)



Well, at least I know that when I debate a position where I feel I'm comfortable that I'm "right", I tend to constantly toss my opponent new Ne data claiming that he or she can't be right since it doesn't fit the data available. Their model is inefficient and flawed and Ti urges them to consider the new Ne data I provide to fix their model. I find that it's often less about why I'm right and more about why they're wrong. I become less concerned with arguing for my own position as I'm concerned with correcting their position to appear as more logical. This tactic rarely if ever works with judgers since judgers are very set on what to think once they've decided, but I can't help it lulz.

INTJs on the other hand are more concerned explaining why they're right than why their opponent is wrong. So it's more that INTP it's my opponent is wrong, therefore I'm right; and for the INTJ it's I'm right, therefore my opponent is wrong.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Selling an idea? Can you explain that?


Sure. When I'm arguing with someone, very little of my argumentation has to do with convincing them _I'm right_. It's almost as if the idea I'm "selling" exists independent of me arguing for it. I'm trying to convince the other person that this idea is better than whatever idea they believe is right, regardless of whether or not I believe that to be true _and_ whether or not I believe in the idea. INTx's set up a model and then show how only their data set fits the model, whereas I like to get inside the person's head and make the connections with the idea for them, getting them to agree with me.



LeaT said:


> Exactly, which is why INTP logic can be as subjective as the INTJ if the INTP has decided on what feels logical already and dismisses new information Ne feeds the Ti because Ti is currently comfortable with the conclusion it arrived at. It becomes even more confusing once you develop your Fi a bit. Sometimes in debate I can use Ti and Fi at the same time if someone broke my values AND principles. It's an utter mess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perfect example of INTx strategy. Both deal with an evaluation in regards to some objective standard, keenly aware of flaws in the data sets and using those flaws to show how the INTx's data set is superior, while an ENTx will be less concerned with flaws in the idea because it's not necessarily a comparison between MY idea and YOUR idea, I'm proving that THIS idea is ideal and therefore you ought to believe it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> Sure. When I'm arguing with someone, very little of my argumentation has to do with convincing them _I'm right_. It's almost as if the idea I'm "selling" exists independent of me arguing for it. I'm trying to convince the other person that this idea is better than whatever idea they believe is right, regardless of whether or not I believe that to be true _and_ whether or not I believe in the idea. INTx's set up a model and then show how only their data set fits the model, whereas I like to get inside the person's head and make the connections with the idea for them, getting them to agree with me.


Meh, sounds very much what I'm doing. I often argue like this when people make illogical statements, rush to conclusions or don't rely on facts to support their position. Ít's rarely because I feel that I'm right or wrong (I can feel that way, but it's probably more that NiTe ass sneaking his way upp inside) but more why I think the opponent is wrong. I'm a terrible seller, though 




> Perfect example of INTx strategy. Both deal with an evaluation in regards to some objective standard, keenly aware of flaws in the data sets and using those flaws to show how the INTx's data set is superior, while an ENTx will be less concerned with flaws in the idea because it's not necessarily a comparison between MY idea and YOUR idea, I'm proving that THIS idea is ideal and therefore you ought to believe it.


I understand but I don't understand  I don't see how this is related to extraversion and introversion?


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Meh, sounds very much what I'm doing. I often argue like this when people make illogical statements, rush to conclusions or don't rely on facts to support their position. Ít's rarely because I feel that I'm right or wrong (I can feel that way, but it's probably more that NiTe ass sneaking his way upp inside) but more why I think the opponent is wrong. *I'm a terrible seller, though
> *
> 
> 
> ...


That's the difference. When boiled down, i can sell the idea. Facts? Statistics? Models? Ultimately these are just obstacles for me to manipulate and use to convince someone that I am right, regardless of what the facts and data actually support.

An ENTJ will take my argument, test it against his internal model, and if it fits, will accept it. My job is to form the argument such that it fits the ENTJ's model.
An ENTP... will do exactly what I do, deconstruct the argument, pick it apart with Ti, and spit it back in a new version. If it passes Ti, it stays.

The introverts... are much harder to convince. I don't have a set strategy for selling INTx's. The Ti-dom thinks he's already considered my proposition (which is possible, but not likely) and the Ni-dom always suspects my proposition to be untrue because it isn't what he's concluded with NiTe.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

gingertonic said:


> That's the difference. When boiled down, i can sell the idea. Facts? Statistics? Models? Ultimately these are just obstacles for me to manipulate and use to convince someone that I am right, regardless of what the facts and data actually support.
> 
> An ENTJ will take my argument, test it against his internal model, and if it fits, will accept it. My job is to form the argument such that it fits the ENTJ's model.
> An ENTP... will do exactly what I do, deconstruct the argument, pick it apart with Ti, and spit it back in a new version. If it passes Ti, it stays.
> ...


Oh I see. I don't think I've come across many ENTJs in real life and the ones I have come across I usually try to avoid as they generally annoy me (businessmen in suits).


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Oh I see. I don't think I've come across many ENTJs in real life and the ones I have come across I usually try to avoid as they generally annoy me (businessmen in suits).


lol, that's my dad right there.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Omg the INTJs and INTPs are so full of themselves.


Says an ENTP, a type that is notorious for hitting below the belt to win debates.


----------



## sinaasappel (Jul 22, 2015)

Emologic said:


> Says an ENTP, a type that is notorious for hitting below the belt to win debates.


Probably because by time that happens we've been annoyed and forced to climb up a wall, take the L dammit! :tongue:


----------

