# Are INTJ's more creative than INTP's?



## j3321

It seems like Ni would be more about generating ideas than Ti. Ti is just like analysis or breakdown of ideas. Yet I often feel like Ti is giving me a constant stream of insights.


----------



## Protagoras

INTPs are far more creative in their thinking, but INTJs are more creative in every other aspect of their lives... and their creativity is more noticeable to others because of their high Te. So, I think it's safe to say that INTJs have a more creative lifestyle than INTPs.


----------



## Apollo Celestio

j3321 said:


> It seems like Ni would be more about generating ideas than Ti. Ti is just like analysis or breakdown of ideas. Yet I often feel like Ti is giving me a constant stream of insights.


Maybe you're better at Ni than MBTI would like you to think? It's just another variable of personality.. Typically introverts are overshadowed by their extroverted peers anyway.


----------



## nevermore

Depends on what you mean by "more creative"...


----------



## nevermore

In the "proper" sense of the term INTJ's, because their Ni is dominant and is of the purer, arguably more powerful (introverted form). It comes up with ideas seemingly out of nowhere, the principles behind which whole worldviews are based. Many people do not see this, because Te is extraverted, but it is in fact true. But Ni does limit itself more to ideas it thinks are feasible.

In the "popular" sense of the term, INTP's, because Ne is what many S-types consider "creative" in that it is whimsical and wacky and outside the box. Because it is extraverted, it is slightly more likely to have an artistic incarnation (often conflated with creativity in the popular imagination - look at the "exrtremely creative" INFP; they are actually feeling dominant), and will be seen by more people. And Jung said something about Ti and Fi having "original ideas" but I don't know what he meant by that. Maybe our judgments are so "pure" and exact/genuine they are also by extension unique?

In terms of creative _output_ however, that depends entirely on the person. Individual S's might be more creative than a lot of N's by that definition. All depends. Still, anyone who prefers intuition is going to be creative (or at least imaginative) to the point of it being a strength. But I'd have to think ENP's and INJ's would be more so, or would have to work at it less.

If I am wrong anywhere please point it out and I will be happy to concede if it is well argued; creativity is prized in many people above all else (including myself, I have to admit) and no one is going to want to think they are "less creative" than somebody else. It goes without saying this is a touchy subject.


----------



## amnorvend

> Ti is just like analysis or breakdown of ideas.


Yep. And I think I analyze and break ideas down in a very creative way thank you very much.

Seriously though, I don't think that type really has much to do with creativity. It just shows you how any creativity a person has will be applied. Just because Ti is logical doesn't mean that it isn't creative.


----------



## nevermore

amnorvend said:


> Yep. And I think I analyze and break ideas down in a very creative way thank you very much.
> 
> Seriously though, I don't think that type really has much to do with creativity. It just shows you how any creativity a person has will be applied. Just because Ti is logical doesn't mean that it isn't creative.


I don't see logic as creative, nor do I see values and feeling-based judgments as deserving of that label. They are just approvers. In the case of Ti and Fi, definers. _Judging_ functions. You might think your Ti is creative, but I'd be inclined to suspect you are confusing it with the creative ideas Ne is giving you. Ne gives us the strategies we use to refine and break down ideas. But we also synthesize existing ideas to make new ones using Ne. Ti just tells us whether or not they are useful.

Creative does not mean "resourceful", although people are trying to redefine it for fear of not being seen as creative. It does not just mean "doing something productive" etiher. It means_ creating_ - not breaking apart. The_ strategy_ you use to break ideas down may be creative, but that, as I said, would come from Ne would it not? We _do _use Ne a lot, if not as much as Ti and often for the sake of Ti, just as INTJ's use Te a lot. I have been referred to as a very creative person by others - quite frequently in fact. And I am one. But it is not my Ti they are talking about.

I reiterate; as far as I am concerned creativity is the creation of something new, not breaking something apart or clarifying what it is (we do a TON of the latter). In other words, not Ti. Ti clarifies, defines, gets at the essence of what something is, checks to see if our web of ideas is coherent and consistent with absolute logic. Creativity is synthesis...divergent thought...it is what our Ne does for us. It is _not _analysis. Now, there is nothing wrong with analysis; it's just a different thinking style. We spend most of our time worrying about whether or not the ideas our Ne comes up with are logical. Big deal. There are strengths associated with that, whether you want to call them creative strengths or not. This careful deliberation gives a well developed INTP a sense of wisdom most other types find hard to attain...

But we may have very different definitions of the word "creative". Our society's fetishization of creativity means that everyone wants a piece of the pie, which means changing the definition of the word so it means nothing. That's my take on it at least. My Ti just wishes people would be more precise...


----------



## InvisibleJim

The error is defining 'more creative' when infact the creativity is different.

The typical cognitive process for an INTJ (Ni-Te) is to fixate on something generated by internal perception/internal imagination then think about it outside their heads (beware INTJs and whiteboards).

For INTPs they know what they are aiming to do and how it is logically constructed (Ti) then set about pulling in external ideas (Ne) through research to help them solve what is their main thought process.


----------



## nevermore

InvisibleJim said:


> The error is defining 'more creative' when infact the creativity is different.
> 
> The typical cognitive process for an INTJ (Ni-Te) is to fixate on something generated by internal perception/internal imagination then think about it outside their heads (beware INTJs and whiteboards).
> 
> For INTPs they know what they are aiming to do and how it is logically constructed (Ti) then set about pulling in external ideas (Ne) through research to help them solve what is their main thought process.


Yes, although the ideas are not arrived at through research. Anyone of any type can do that. It's a bit like plucking them from a stream...they sort of "come at you" in random spurts (more like gunfire for ENP's it seems), based loosely on what sort of pattern it is seeing in the environment. They are often random and discombobulated and the Ti must sift them out according to quality and find a way of fitting them into its general vision, which is in and of itself a very loose abstraction derrived from Ne. That is why the INTP is often called the "architect". The creativity still comes from the Ne, but the Ti is what "makes it good". It culls the more embarassing ADD moments the Ne very frequently has and incorporates only the best as it sees fit.


----------



## j3321

Well okay here is my next question. Since I feel my internal world is much richer and deeper than the external world I see, wouldn't Ni have 100000000000 million times more material work with? Verse Ne which only has to work the externals?


----------



## nevermore

j3321 said:


> Well okay here is my next question. Since I feel my internal world is much richer and deeper than the external world I see, wouldn't Ni have 100000000000 million times more material work with? Verse Ne which only has to work the externals?


Well, Ne is designed to imaginatively shape "the external world" (being an-N function that is an imprecise definition, but you get what I'm saying), but we still come up with "externals" in our minds creatively. We don't_ literally _get them from the external world (if you are an Ne user you can relate to "plucking an idea from a flowing stream of ideas"). And there is a great deal of crossover. I think "100000000000 million times" is a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously you were using hyperbole there, but I sense some despair here; please - don't. Is Te "100000000000 million times less logical"? Not at all. Aristotle was the father of logic, and he was an INTJ. Like Ne, it is not as pure or powerful, but then again it uses impersonal reasoning in a different way and has unique powers Ti does not. Ti doesn't do too well with organzing the external world; Te does. Ne may not be as deep or powerful, but it also has its own unique powers and is by no means less prolific. The only reason it is in INTP's is that it is our second function, not our first. We spend more time "thinking", less time "intuiting". It does not usually take up less of our mind _because_ it is extraverted. But it is still our primary percieving funtion, and our perception is, first and foremost imaginative, not concrete/literal. And it is the same perception our Ti uses to make judgments.

And similarly to Te's unique organizational powers, Ne has (NJ's please correct me if I am wrong...I saw the INF types reach this conclusion on another thread and I will retract my statements if they turn out to be false...there are few things worse to me than vain self-praise when it is not deserved) the capacity to imagine things in richer visual detail. It has to - it is built to engage the external world! A wonderful plus there is a fantastic visual imagination (the popular definition of "imagination", as I said in another post). I am _very_ grateful for my "artistic" imagination...every time I despair about my inabillity to draw and open my mouth to describe what it is I want to, even ISFP's are amazed. They tend to draw things they have literally seen, but I can create fantastic worlds no one has ever seen in the blink of an eye. You may have that same gift. Embrace it!


----------



## amnorvend

nevermore said:


> I don't see logic as creative, nor do I see values and feeling-based judgments as deserving of that label. They are just approvers. In the case of Ti and Fi, definers. _Judging_ functions. You might think your Ti is creative, but I'd be inclined to suspect you are confusing it with the creative ideas Ne is giving you. Ne gives us the strategies we use to refine and break down ideas. But we also synthesize existing ideas to make new ones using Ne. Ti just tells us whether or not they are useful.


Two things:

1. I suspect _you're_ mistaking Ti's instinctual nature with Ne.

2. Judging functions can be creative. Even if I grant you that Ti only serves to tell if something is useful, that still leaves a wide range of possibilities. First and foremost, what purpose are you trying to achieve? Something can't be useful with no goal.

I think the disconnect is when you say that you don't feel that logic is creative, but I don't think that's true. Tell me that Einstein's theory of relativity or Goedel's incompleteness theorem aren't creative uses of logic. Is there some form of intuition involved? Sure. But that doesn't detract from the creativity of thinking.

Like I said, I don't think that type is related to creativity. It shows how creativity is applied.


----------



## thehigher

neither. 



Ne and Ni are both pretty damn creative. I think since INTP's have extroverted intuition their creativity may easier to see. But that's not for certain. 

I think of it like this personally....
Picture a bunch of boxes connected by strings. each box represents stimuli. Where Ne goes and connects the boxes together, Ni takes one of those boxes and dissects all of the possibilities of that one idea. Ne connects the idea to another idea and possible ways of connecting ideas. 

Could be wrong though. 

That being said. How could you say either is more creative? They are just creative in different arenas.



I have noticed.... get ready for some not very empirical shit.....

I have noticed that Ne ..... when used in the context of music..... tends to not have many..... endings ... at least in the musical phrases. The phrase's ending will be somewhat unclear...... like it constantly flows without needing a definite ending. 

I have noticed that Ni Te or Ni Fe users tend to have definite endings in their phrases..... but between each phrase are much more complicated ..... ness. 


To show an example....... let's take two rappers. 


Devlin- INTJ 
Orifice Vulgatron- ENTP 


Notice the difference in their delivery. Notice how devlin uses much more definite endings than orifice. 

This is orifice vulgatron. He is an ENTP. 

check out 0: 27 




check out 1: 37 





Now devlin












Now I realize we are comparing INTP's and INTJ's but.... hey. I don't know many INTP examples. ENTP's will have to do since they have the same functions but use Ne as their first function


----------



## Magnificent Bastard

At the risk of sounding simplistic, but isn't creativity associated with the ability to create "new" things? Starting with flashes of insight and then moving on to rumination or application.


----------



## amnorvend

Magnificent Bastard said:


> At the risk of sounding simplistic, but isn't creativity associated with the ability to create "new" things?


Yes. But what are the new things you create? You can create new logical rules (T). You can create new sensations (S). You can create new relationships (F). You can create new ways to interpret sensations (N). N probably strikes people as most creative simply because it isn't as common.


----------



## j3321

amnorvend said:


> Yes. But what are the new things you create? You can create new logical rules (T). You can create new sensations (S). You can create new relationships (F). You can create new ways to interpret sensations (N). N probably strikes people as most creative simply because it isn't as common.


Very Nice.


----------



## nevermore

amnorvend said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. I suspect _you're_ mistaking Ti's instinctual nature with Ne.
> 
> 2. Judging functions can be creative. Even if I grant you that Ti only serves to tell if something is useful, that still leaves a wide range of possibilities. First and foremost, what purpose are you trying to achieve? Something can't be useful with no goal.
> 
> I think the disconnect is when you say that you don't feel that logic is creative, but I don't think that's true. Tell me that Einstein's theory of relativity or Goedel's incompleteness theorem aren't creative uses of logic. Is there some form of intuition involved? Sure. But that doesn't detract from the creativity of thinking.
> 
> Like I said, I don't think that type is related to creativity. It shows how creativity is applied.


Logical _systems_ are by definition creative, but Ne was still what designed the system...it just waited for the Ti to "clear" its ideas for logical rules most of the time. Like I said, an INTP is not just Ti, and you probably use Ne more often than you think. We still do everything uniquely and originally, because most of the data the Ti is getting (and the data that fits best with it) is imaginative data, data gathered and created by Ne.

I should add that the creativity of INTP's is indeed of a different type and has its own advantages. I was (up till now) not making as many points for the "INTP side" (but I do not want this to turn into a contest; I want it to be a dispassionate comparison) because I am biased and do not want to paint an overly flattering portrait of my type. I am interested to see what people think of my "visual imagination" hypothesis and see whether or not my observations are accurate. I do not want to argue something that makes me look like I am trying to do anything but arrive at the truth/keep the peace; it discredits me as a person of reason.

The INTP has "less imagination" than an INTJ (that is what I meant by creativity), but what he or she creates is richer and often more thorough/of greater quality. Depending on your worldview, it may not matter and this tradeoff may be worth it. Like the INTJ has a giant sack of silver, the INTP a ring of gold and diamonds. The INTJ sacrifices accuracy and profundity but gains breadth and vision, vice versa for the INTP. Of course, you cannot compare the quality of these two very different types of work in a strict sense, but the INTP comes closer to what may be termed _perfection_...in our case, that ideal is usually logical consistency. I reiterate; the INTJ has a grand vision with less "depth", a bit like Lake Erie, whereas the INTP's vision is smaller, but much deeper, like Lake Baikal. INTJ's are* seers* (greater powers of foresight), INTP's* sages* (deeper powers of thought, often greater wisdom). As you can see, there is a lot to be said for the way we think. But INTJ's are still very logical (they are T's!) and INTP's are still very creative (we are N's!).

Thanks for the comparisons of rap videos, the higher.:happy: Connecting things that already exist seemed less "imaginative" to me, but in the strict sense of putting something there where there was nothing before it is creative...it just doesn't quite get to the "purest essence" of N. I don't really care; Ne discombobulates and remixes so much you'd be hardpressed to call what it comes up with anything but unique...it is more random than Ni is at least. I love my Ne and even my Ti for that matter; I just think stretching the defintion of creativity too far belittles creativity and that is what has been happening since it began entering retail manuals ("find creative ways of loading carts onto the truck"!) The word lost a lot of its magic; by changing the definition to make more people and mindsets fit under the umbrella you make creativity less alluring - which begs the question: why would you change the definition in the first place? Less reason for you to want on board now.

But these are artistic examples you're giving here; Ni may not be a disadvantage in the arts, but it is not an advantage. Ne and Ni are on equal playing ground here, and to be honest, I think Ne can sometimes take the cake. There are probably tons of Ni users who are also artists, but Ne just seems like a more obvious match for the arts. Not dismissing INTJ artists, of course. I love the angst of INTJ composers, for instance. But using imagination (N) to adapt the physcial world (E) just screams artistic.


----------



## nevermore

amnorvend said:


> Yes. But what are the new things you create? You can create new logical rules (T). You can create new sensations (S). You can create new relationships (F). You can create new ways to interpret sensations (N). N probably strikes people as most creative simply because it isn't as common.


N certainly strikes people as more amazing because it is less common. I will definately give you that. But do you really "come up" with logical rules? Seems to me logic is something you just use...but then again I've never studied formal logic in great depth. While Ti is instinctive, I do not confuse it with intuition. I am very aware of both mental processes in my mind. Ti certainly helps creativity along, but I think it guides the Ne more than anything else, telling it which ideas are good and which are bad, allowing the Ne to narrow its range to good ideas and come up with the best ideas of all. Please tell me if it does not and acts on its own; I _really_ want to believe you.:happy: But I have trouble seeing it.

PS. It may seem odd that I am "arguing against my own type here". I dunno...I don't want to be pretentious and call Ti something it may not be. As far I can see, I still think that the obvious definition of creativity is similar to iNtuition. P-functions are idea generators, and of the two the N function generates ideas that least resemble things that already existed. Logic is a skill, a power, a very impressive power that seeks to do something very important. Ti is a very complex, powerful function. I just don't see it, by itself, as creative. And I don't care; it has Ne to fill that role, to give me a constant stream of imaginative possibilities, and with Ti in charge the smaller (for an N) number of ideas my Ne comes up with are very good ones indeed.

I am a creative person. And I like it that way. I just don't get how judgment is imagination.


----------



## wafflecake

I don't know if INTJ's are _more_ creative than INTPs. It just seems like they act on their creativity more (the need to produce).

I doubt this is indicitive of other INTPs, but I know I have a plethoa of ideas; I just never act on them. Why? Well, because I'm too lazy to act on ideas that aren't _that_ great. I know I'm looking and waiting for that one idea that will consume me and will become my passion. I've started novels, music blogs, studied photography, been in a few bands, etc. Still searching for something worthwhile to spend my energy on.

My INTJ friend is currently creating a graphic novel; he's already got the storyline planned, the characters drawn out, and is in the process of drawing now. I've proofread his drafts, and it's amazing stuff. I may talk to him about starting some sort of creative collaborative endeavor.


----------



## Ti Dominant

j3321 said:


> It seems like Ni would be more about generating ideas than Ti. Ti is just like analysis or breakdown of ideas. Yet I often feel like Ti is giving me a constant stream of insights.


You're forgetting that INTP's have Ne as a secondary function which does lead to great creativity. Ne and Ni are both creative functions, just in different ways.
Therefore, I would say that all of the* INXX *types are highly creative. I wouldn't say either one is more creative than the others. They are all creative in different ways.


----------



## Ti Dominant

j3321 said:


> Well okay here is my next question. Since I feel my internal world is much richer and deeper than the external world I see, wouldn't Ni have 100000000000 million times more material work with? Verse Ne which only has to work the externals?


No. Both types have material to work with. They just emphasize one more than the other.
And there is no reason to think that internal or external world is more useful for creativity (in terms of preference). 

It seems to me that you're just forcing a personal bias through a very loose understanding of the function theory.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis

I'm pretty sure NP's make the most innovations and breakthroughs.


----------



## fragrance

Elwood92 said:


> INTPs are far more creative in their thinking, but INTJs are more creative in every other aspect of their lives... and their creativity is more noticeable to others because of their high Te. So, I think it's safe to say that INTJs have a more creative lifestyle than INTPs.


Good point. INTP excel in modeling and rigorous abstraction whereas INTJ are better in strategy (which is also a form of creativity). Concerning the normal definition of creativity (arts and so on), I'd say that INTJ are more at home there because of their intuition. I think INTP would be more interested in the neuroscience of art/music.


----------



## nevermore

patria said:


> Concerning the normal definition of creativity (arts and so on), I'd say that INTJ are more at home there because of their intuition. I think INTP would be more interested in the neuroscience of art/music.


Careers Selected Most Often by INTP -

1) Scientist: Chemistry
2) Computer Professional
3) Architect
4) Research Assistant
*5) Fine Artist*
6) Computer Programmer, Systems Analyst, or Support Representative
7) Lawyer
8) Food Service Worker
9) Surveyor
10) Manager: Federal Executive

SOURCE: INTP Occupations


----------



## fragrance

nevermore said:


> *5) Fine Artist*


That doesn't say anything at all. You can find those kinds of lists everywhere:

Careers chosen by those preferring the INTJ's dominant function (Ni) (calculated using "selection ratio")

Project manager
Nurse
Technical specialist
Lawyer/attorney
*Designer*
Engineer
Professor/academic/lecturer
*Artist/actor*
Manager
*Writer/editor*
Forces
Trainer
Clergy/church worker
Counsellor

Source: INTJ Careers: A List of Professional Jobs


----------



## nevermore

patria said:


> That doesn't say anything at all. You can find those kinds of lists everywhere:
> 
> Careers chosen by those preferring the INTJ's dominant function (Ni) (calculated using "selection ratio")
> 
> Project manager
> Nurse
> Technical specialist
> Lawyer/attorney
> *Designer*
> Engineer
> Professor/academic/lecturer
> *Artist/actor*
> Manager
> *Writer/editor*
> Forces
> Trainer
> Clergy/church worker
> Counsellor
> 
> Source: INTJ Careers: A List of Professional Jobs


I think you are misunderstanding me. I was not saying that INTJ's were not likely to be at home in the arts. Only that INTP's also were.

I know both INTJ and INTP artists personally.

Source: My life:tongue:


----------



## reefercheefer

amnorvend said:


> Just because Ti is logical doesn't mean that it isn't creative.


Actually, i think thats exactly what it means.


----------



## nevermore

^^
Yeah...see this is the problem. Creativity is prized in our society, and everyone likes to think of themselves as creative, so people stretch the definition to mean something it doesn't.

If you just define creative as "making something" or "doing something", it loses its meaning entirely. If that is all "creative" means, _why_ exactly do you want to be creative? What is so special about it now?

That's why I never got why people insist on diluting the word to make people feel good. Soon no one will have any reason to feel good when the word creative is mentioned, because it will mean nothing. So who wins?

But then again, many INTJ's are also on a kind of an "Ni high horse" and develop a superiority complex they seek to defend when they even get the vaguest whiff that someone is not consciously thinking about how Ni is not God's Gift to the Human Race. Hence patria's apparent discomfort at the mere existence of INTP artists and the belief I was somehow in some sort of competition with her when I mentioned their existence.

But still, my point stands, even though I seem to be the only INTP honest enough to make it: Ti, by itself, is not creative. Per se. No judging function is, nor are the Sensing functions (in a meaningful sense). Big deal. Embrace your Ti and its powers of discernment. Take up something that forces you to stretch your imagination to the limit, and develop your Ne. It's quite possible to become very strong with your secondary function, you know, although it will always serve the dominant function. Bertrand Russell (ENTP) had a killer command of Ti...

But it's a lot easier to sit around a claim your dominant function is something it isn't, isn't it? (Or...just "cut your losses" and make fun of Sensors! That's aways a good time!:crazy::wink


----------



## j3321

I wouldn't say Ti isn't creative. It is a judging function but you can come to novel conclusions with it.


----------



## dude10000

INTPs are more creative, only because they're less creative. There's an admirable element of clumsiness and carelessness the INTPs possess that gives them a larger creative horizon. INTJs are more likely to get lost in the One True Vision, without developing their ideas.


----------



## nevermore

JHBowden said:


> INTPs are more creative, only because they're less creative. There's an admirable element of clumsiness and carelessness the INTPs possess that gives them a larger creative horizon. INTJs are more likely to get lost in the One True Vision, without developing their ideas.


Yes, that is a good comparison.

Ne is broader than Ni in it's scope, it just doesn't have a focus. It just sees a bunch of random connections and possibilties. An INTP (and moreso an ENTP) would come up with more ideas, because Ne does not have that "there-can-be-only-one-ness". As I have mentioned several times, that is why they are so successful in comedy, where the wild and unexpected is prized.

The INTP is less likely to dismiss something as a bad idea, especially if they have learned to rein in their Ti.

Also since the INTP extraverts their creativity, people are more likely to see it. I have a more offbeat and whimsical lifestyle than the INTJ's I know, and am a lot funnier than they are. People always tell me how creative I am, so the point here isn't that INTP's aren't creative at all.

Still I do not have the same intensity of vision. I am scattered, and I need Ti to make sense of it.


----------



## reefercheefer

this should have been a poll


----------



## lirulin

It's hard to see Ni as creative, because to me it doesn't _exactly _create. I just see things that are already there. The relationships exist - even if no one has thought of them before. Ni has an incredible depth and widescale view and it is amazing and probably seems creative to others, but to me it is always obvious. Or something that should have been obvious. And it is so broad and complicated that the making of it into any actual creation involves boatloads of Te. Te is really the workhorse in that. Ne seems to be closer contact, detailed, smaller in a way - not in potential scope, but in each instance of plucking an idea - so that it seems like it would lead more directly to something more tangible in the creative line. Obviously not as tangible as Sensing, but it has the more extraverted connection to reality. I find when I try to write something, for instance, I know first the thematic elements and certain abstract ways I can relate words to accomplish particular artistic goals - but it takes tons of Te to determing what words/characters/images can actually represent my ideas and patterns. It is like I have a cutout of a really cool pattern but I have to do all the work of colouring it in - but Ne will see closer, see the colours, the detail, a more _immediately useable _idea - and then, I guess, build the shape when they want a bigger system. &I can't imagine visually - but I can figure out which visual images fit a pattern without really seeing them.

I imagine there is an element of the grass being greener just because Ni/Ne are in fact perceiving functions - and what feels like seeing doesn't feel so creative as looking at others who see things you couldn't so easily.


----------



## amnorvend

JHBowden said:


> INTPs are more creative, only because they're less creative. There's an admirable element of clumsiness and carelessness the INTPs possess that gives them a larger creative horizon. INTJs are more likely to get lost in the One True Vision, without developing their ideas.


I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or just saying what you said in different terms, but I don't know if I would necessarily say clumsiness or carelessness are the source of an NTP's creativity, but I can see how it would look that way.

NTJs (in my experience ENTJs especially, but also INTJs to a lesser degree) want to be sure something is going to work before they do it. If they don't know that something will work (or don't at least strongly suspect it), they will avoid doing it if possible. Thus, I'd say the NTJ motto is "Measure twice, cut once".

NTPs generally work by trial and error. We generally figure out if something will work by trying it out. Thus, we're more likely to make stupid mistakes, but we're also likely to try out a lot of things NTJs wouldn't ever dream of doing. Thus, I'd say Edison best put the NTP motto: "I haven't failed, I've only found 100 ways that haven't worked."


----------



## nevermore

lirulin said:


> It's hard to see Ni as creative, because to me it doesn't _exactly _create.* I just see things that are already there.* The relationships exist - even if no one has thought of them before. Ni has an incredible depth and widescale view and it is amazing and probably seems creative to others, but to me it is always obvious. Or something that should have been obvious. And it is so broad and complicated that the making of it into any actual creation involves boatloads of Te. Te is really the workhorse in that. Ne seems to be closer contact, detailed, smaller in a way - not in potential scope, but in each instance of plucking an idea - so that it seems like it would lead more directly to something more tangible in the creative line. Obviously not as tangible as Sensing, but it has the more extraverted connection to reality. I find when I try to write something, for instance, I know first the thematic elements and certain abstract ways I can relate words to accomplish particular artistic goals - but it takes tons of Te to determing what words/characters/images can actually represent my ideas and patterns. It is like I have a cutout of a really cool pattern but I have to do all the work of colouring it in - but Ne will see closer, see the colours, the detail, a more _immediately useable _idea - and then, I guess, build the shape when they want a bigger system. &I can't imagine visually - but I can figure out which visual images fit a pattern without really seeing them.
> 
> I imagine there is an element of the grass being greener just because Ni/Ne are in fact perceiving functions - and what feels like seeing doesn't feel so creative as looking at others who see things you couldn't so easily.


Interesting; I write fiction in my spare time as well (don't know if I'm any good, but I couldn't live without some form of artistic expression), and of course I mostly relate to the Ne way of doing things. I can summon up richly detailed images on a whim, but I find it rather hard to get the whole story into my head at once, which I find is sort of a disadvantage, because often when I read the whole thing over I find what were wonderful scenes by themselves just don't work as a whole. But when I write an individual scene, there is always at least an imagined context that gives it, say, poingancy; it's just hard for me to keep the whole thing in my head at once without making a new Ne data point that generalizes it. Often I have to play the whole story as a montage to get perspective on the dramatic flow. I need to experience it in real time.

Very insightful post, by the way. I think the last line summed things up very well.


----------

