# Ekstraverted with Ti (ENTP) vs Inroverted with Te (INTJ)



## 750ko (Jul 5, 2014)

I've been analysing and comparing the functions of two friends, one who's ENTP (auxiliary Ti) and one who's INTJ (auxiliary Te).

The ENTP share his thinking more often than the INTJ, and i find the INTJ thinking silently more often. 

I've read that people with a preference for Te have a need to share their thinking with others. But is that really a general rule?

My theory is that an extraverted personality (like ENTP) will have a bigger need to share their thinking, than an introverted (like INTJ). So, when u hear someone extravert their thinking, it might often be an extravert sharing their Ti. What do you people think about that?

Also: Im wondering if the same goes for ESTP vs ISTJ. I think maybe because they configure fewer theoretical possibilities, the ESTP wont have the same need to share their insights.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Incorrect on sharing.

Dominant Ne shares because Ne is all about obtaining more more more information, feedback, and changing thoughts with emergent information as it's perceived. Ne doms go in expecting their thinking will change at least a little bit, even on matters where a firm opinion is held.

The INTJ goes in with a firm desire to reject information, as Ni is more concerned with maintaining its status quo. Not because the INTJ has a desire to be closed minded or ignorant, but because taking in information is draining and resources to do so limited. This also does not mean that the INTJ can't change view, but it is much less willing to do so. Doing so requires a very eye opening remark or experience, something that is not ignorable. Note: this a catch 22, as sometimes eye opening experiences are not a good representation of the whole, and can really skew Ni. As such, Ni doms are quite prone to random what I would coin as "quirkisms". Ni is prone to hyperbole as well, due to the limited Se.

INTJ Te comes into play when an INTJ wants to impact the environment to a certain standardized way of thinking or being. *their* way, based on Ni. The INTJ will only be interested in casual banter and speculation with those whom they respect the opinions of greatly, for better or worse, and will actively shutdown otherwise.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

But is Te really about the sharing of ideas? I think it's more about the external effects of thinking, the practical application of logic. INTJ Te isn't exactly about sitting around discussing thoughts, it's about managing the environment.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Incorrect on sharing.
> 
> Dominant Ne shares because Ne is all about obtaining more more more information, feedback, and changing thoughts with emergent information as it's perceived. Ne doms go in expecting their thinking will change at least a little bit, even on matters where a firm opinion is held.
> 
> The INTJ goes in with a firm desire to reject information, as Ni is more concerned with maintaining its status quo. Not because the INTJ has a desire to be closed minded or ignorant, but because taking in information is draining and resources to do so limited. This also does not mean that the INTJ can't change view, but it is much less willing to do so. Doing so requires a very eye opening remark or experience, something that is not ignorable. Note: this a catch 22, as sometimes eye opening experiences are not a good representation of the whole, and can really skew Ni. As such, Ni doms are quite prone to random what I would coin as "quirkisms". Ni is prone to hyperbole as well, due to the limited Se.


I disagree. I understand that to a certain perspective I'm serving as an example of the example given, but Ni isn't interested in maintaining a way of thinking so much as it is indifferent to the information it takes in, regarding it as arbitrary and subjective. Ni, in tandem with Je chooses instead to subject new information to scrutiny, as comparison of differing ideas tests for its validity and usefulness. Ni would rather take apart a way of thinking and examining each piece to construct its own understanding. The Ni dom knows that at some point his perspective is going to change, in fact, I would argue that many prefer it as the 'eye opening' experiences are energizing and interesting.



> INTJ Te comes into play when an INTJ wants to impact the environment to a certain standardized way of thinking or being. *their* way, based on Ni. The INTJ will only be interested in casual banter and speculation with those whom they respect the opinions of greatly, for better or worse, and will actively shutdown otherwise.


Te comes into play as a lens through which Ni can view new information, serving as a sort of buffer between the INTJ and said information. The outward manifestation of this process of impacting a standardized thinking likely depends on the attitude of the INTJ and isn't an attitude of Ni-Te in general. Some want to steam roll arguments due to frustration, but often, I would say they seek others to understand or seek to understand others. The fact that this is misinterpreted as being closed minded or argumentative is just a lack of communication on one end or the other.

On a personal note, I compare opinions because I want the most useful information for which to use in pursuit of goals. I certainly don't consider switching perspectives draining, though as I said, anything I say can be interpreted as being but an example of the post in question.


----------



## 750ko (Jul 5, 2014)

I can see that I misinterpreted the functions a little bit in the way they are expressed. Thank you.


----------



## MightyLizardKing (Jun 7, 2014)

Typically most of my "sharing" is my ideas and "perspectives." The perspectives I share may not be my own, but they are ones I'd like to explore. I usually keep my "ultimate" or "final" conclusions to myself. That said, my "final" conclusions may only last for, like, 5 seconds, because I can't come to any real conclusion on anything. Oh well.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I think it's important not to understate the importance of the word "useful." Once you get a sense of what usefulness actually means, and that it's not conflated with anything but "Is this useful to me or whatever thing by virtue of its objective features?" modified with Si/Ni approaches or focuses used to build up the location for this information, you begin to see how cruelly bare-bones Te really is. Of course there are many modifications of the results of an individual's process, so the bland result of Te may not be in full force, but when it is, it is solely concerned with usefulness and in no respect with idealism. This is not such a negative thing in a world full of deception.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> The INTJ goes in with a firm desire to reject information, as Ni is more concerned with maintaining its status quo. Not because the INTJ has a desire to be closed minded or ignorant, but because taking in information is draining and resources to do so limited. This also does not mean that the INTJ can't change view, but it is much less willing to do so. Doing so requires a very eye opening remark or experience, something that is not ignorable. Note: this a catch 22, as sometimes eye opening experiences are not a good representation of the whole, and can really skew Ni. As such, Ni doms are quite prone to random what I would coin as "quirkisms". Ni is prone to hyperbole as well, due to the limited Se.


This seems to be your own misconstrued perception of the type as it's very far from reality. 

Ni as a function is extremely sensitive to archetypes. Archetypes reflect the collective unconscious which is a "psychic" storehouse of all human experience, inclination, and knowledge. The foresight of INTJs and INFJs is so startlingly accurate because of it's link to the archetypes and collective unconscious. As the INTJ evaluates and interacts with their environment through Te/Se, their Ni either notices external events and information as falling into archetypes own their own, or it guides their Te in such a way as to "funnel" information through an archetype resulting in special insight and/or foresight.

As for the bit on not wanting to change views; Lenore Thomson Personality Type: An Owners Manual:



> p. 223: "Introverted Intuition would prompt us to liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating new options for perception itself."
> 
> p. 225: "For INJs, patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us--the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that's all it is--an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it."
> 
> ...





> Introverted Intuition (Ni) is the attitude that whatever is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is only the tiniest fraction of the total reality and all of its potential, and it is manifest only because it serves a purpose--a purpose that it achieves by exploiting a certain way of interpreting or navigating by signs. Ni is attunement to what lurks in the shadow of that manifestation. What is that assumed way of interpreting or navigating? What could we see if we were free of it?
> 
> Introverted Intuition is a way of orienting yourself to your environment by consciously attending to the expected interpretations of things. In this manner of orientation, you hold agnostic about whether those interpretations are true. You view them as expected interpretations, nothing more. Your world is a world of expected interpretations defined by others; you navigate through those interpretations and use them without regard to whether they're true, always keeping the interpretations separate in your mind from the actual objects.





> Ni is orienting yourself by an explicit representation of the mapping between signs and meaning. For example, "This dark-stained mahogany table is supposed to make me think the owner is upper-class" or "We put north at the top of maps (rather than, say, the bottom or the right), because northern countries traditionally had more power, and we perceive 'higher on the page' to mean 'more important'." From an Ni standpoint, one doesn't feel oriented until one can articulate explicitly what are the signs one is supposed to look at and what are the meanings one is supposed to take from them.
> 
> Because the mental space that Ni "lives in" is the world of all possible ways of mapping signs to meanings, Ni leads you to consider not only the accepted ways of mapping signs to meanings, but others. For example, why couldn't dark-stained mahogany mean "lower class"? For example, what if instead of viewing failing a test as an occasion for shame, we viewed it as an occasion for celebration? How might our lives change if we merely rewired the interpretations we are giving to things?
> 
> An Ni perspective leads one to seek out the leverage points of any system. What is triggering what? What "good faith" assumptions are being made, and what would happen if those assumptions were violated? For example, ants "interpret" certain pheromones as "meaning" that something is a larva that needs to be fed. Some parasites have evolved the ability to give off these same pheromones, triggering the ants to feed them. The parasites have found a way to game the system by exploiting its assumptions. The parasites don't orient by Ni, of course, but this kind of analysis takes an Ni approach. One can apply this same kind of analysis to almost anything: looking at a system not through the lens of "how it's supposed to work", but from outside the system, merely characterizing how it converts a sign into an interpretation, triggering a cascade of behaviors.


Your "analysis" of Ni is just flat out incorrect. It orients through archetypes and evaluates by expected interpretations granting it an ability to tap new conceptual viewpoints. In the dominant position Ni prevents the type from taking "facts" and "standardized ways of thinking" too seriously. Mainly because that's Si paired with Te, not Ni.



> INTJ Te comes into play when an INTJ wants to impact the environment to a certain standardized way of thinking or being. *their* way, based on Ni. The INTJ will only be interested in casual banter and speculation with those whom they respect the opinions of greatly, for better or worse, and will actively shutdown otherwise.


Ni preceding Te creates an ad hoc approach in which the type seeks to impose their intuition onto reality, regardless of how supposedly "plausible" such a thing may be. They literally seek to control their environment and actualize their intuitive visions and inclinations out in reality, which requires an empirical understanding of said reality. That entails emphasis on experimentation and direct observation. We see in that in a plethora of INTJs from Augustus Caesar to Tesla. 

Where the op was going on about Te sharing it's thoughts with others. I'm not share where he got that from but it has nothing to do with Te. The best way to understand the thinking functions;

Te = Empiricism

Ti = Rationalism


----------



## 750ko (Jul 5, 2014)

Octavian said:


> Where the op was going on about Te sharing it's thoughts with others. I'm not share where he got that from but it has nothing to do with Te.


One of the biggest problems with type is all the misconceptions and misleading information. I read a book named "Building blocks of personality type". 

*I quote from the book about Te: *

"Need to talk in order to think."

"Need to talk out their logic and underlying assumptions.

"Almost everything you hear from them is thinking verbalized. 

"Thnking out loud often sounds a lot like stating decisions. As long as they are still talking, they probably have not yet reached a final decision."


*I now consider Te more of a way of focusing ones thoughts though... *


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

-Alpha- said:


> I disagree. I understand that to a certain perspective I'm serving as an example of the example given, but Ni isn't interested in maintaining a way of thinking so much as it is indifferent to the information it takes in, regarding it as arbitrary and subjective. Ni, in tandem with Je chooses instead to subject new information to scrutiny, as comparison of differing ideas tests for its validity and usefulness. Ni would rather take apart a way of thinking and examining each piece to construct its own understanding. The Ni dom knows that at some point his perspective is going to change, in fact, I would argue that many prefer it as the 'eye opening' experiences are energizing and interesting.


I did not say that Ni dominants/aux do not prefer 'eye opening' experiences. On the contrary, it can be implied by my tone, that I believe it is exactly what is preferred, hence why it is these experiences that can illicit change of opinion. Really what's happening here at a deeper level, is that an experience must be very potent in order to thoroughly shake the foundation that Ni has conjured as a preferred perception base. It is the unconscious struggle against inferior Se. In the cases where Se is provoked by that stress, then that is when an epiphany occurs. Epiphanies are nothing more than a completely new orientation of Ni taking shape, done at a subconscious level. The reason why Ni dominants claim to have the strongest epiphanies, is simply because their Pe is inferior and completely subconscious, and dominant Ni requires the most work to make a complete shift in perspective. As has been stated by some other posters, Ni is quite adept at shifting perspectives and incorporating new information into Ni - but in a sense this is a resistance to modifying view, not an pure shift in Ni. It is just that Ni based perception is zoomed so far out, that the details that would make perspectives unique are ignored, and everything is all rationalized and bundled up in big large vats of hyperbole - UNTIL the epiphany happens, and Ni has no choice but to grow and completely modify its basis of perception.

Interestingly enough, I have also noticed that Ni dominants especially, when drunk/stressed, absolutely love to *create* eye opening experiences for others. They desire to frame themselves in a different light that others are used to, and act in very unusual ways, which is essentially just their Se breaking free. I have all kinds of stories. Hilarious ones.
[/quote]



> Te comes into play as a lens through which Ni can view new information, serving as a sort of buffer between the INTJ and said information. The outward manifestation of this process of impacting a standardized thinking likely depends on the attitude of the INTJ and isn't an attitude of Ni-Te in general. Some want to steam roll arguments due to frustration, but often, I would say they seek others to understand or seek to understand others. The fact that this is misinterpreted as being closed minded or argumentative is just a lack of communication on one end or the other.


The development of Fi can be a big factor here. It's true that there will be varying levels of openness to discussion. Generally speaking, the more intelligent INTJs are actually the most difficult to reason with. The smartest INTJ I know frequently says "I don't want to argue about it", in a quite flustered way, whenever I try to debate with him. His own ego gets in the way, and he trusts his intuition above all else. It usually takes a good clean failure before he comes back with a willingness to hear my perspective more fully. I don't mind too much, as the breadth of thought I have put into the topics I discuss is generally quite vast, and not easy at all to take in all at once.


> On a personal note, I compare opinions because I want the most useful information for which to use in pursuit of goals. I certainly don't consider switching perspectives draining, though as I said, anything I say can be interpreted as being but an example of the post in question.


It is not switching of perspectives that is draining, but rather having to redefine Ni entirely. When information can be taken in and integrated into Ni smoothly, this is when the INxJs consider themselves "open minded". Really it's not true open mindedness! It's just very skillful integration and glossing over details (limiting Se). It's getting the "gist", and perhaps twisting an already established perspective just a bit. It's paradoxical, because at times just a small shift in Ni can produce an entirely contradictory result. Again, this does not mean that perspective itself has radically changed internally, but rather just bent/shifted direction, but mostly kept its base structure.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Octavian said:


> This seems to be your own misconstrued perception of the type as it's very far from reality.
> 
> Ni as a function is extremely sensitive to archetypes. Archetypes reflect the collective unconscious which is a "psychic" storehouse of all human experience, inclination, and knowledge. The foresight of INTJs and INFJs is so startlingly accurate because of it's link to the archetypes and collective unconscious. As the INTJ evaluates and interacts with their environment through Te/Se, their Ni either notices external events and information as falling into archetypes own their own, or it guides their Te in such a way as to "funnel" information through an archetype resulting in special insight and/or foresight.


Ni is certainly sensitive to architypes, no doubt. I have a very different impression of why Ni is startling accurate, though - statistics. Sort of like a mystic, if you prophesize enough, and go through enough failures, eventually you'll get one straight on. This is exacerbated by black/white perspectives - you can't be "right on" unless you have a firm stance in one direction.

That said, it is true that Ni does have proficiency in identifying the "gist", and ignoring alot of informational dross. It might be "special". It might not be. But when you are tuned into getting the gist first, and filling in details later, then yes you will have a leg up on predicting the general trends first. It's more linked to emphasis and natural predilection.



> Your "analysis" of Ni is just flat out incorrect. It orients through archetypes and evaluates by expected interpretations granting it an ability to tap new conceptual viewpoints. In the dominant position Ni prevents the type from taking "facts" and "standardized ways of thinking" too seriously. Mainly because that's Si paired with Te, not Ni.


Having a desire for standardized thinking is quite different from mindlessly accepting it. I have found that the primary component that pushes NTJs especially towards standardized thinking, is a certain level of impatience and urgency. Unless it is an area of great expertise and interest, there will be little desire to sift through all the details of a topic. It's much easier just to ask around what everyone's viewpoint is (only people whose opinions are respected by the NTJ). Then, after hearing a bunch of views, sleep on it, and after some time an Ni vision will emerge. It is a time saving technique. The vision will likely not be all correct due to the ignorance of detail, but will mostly correct and good enough. It hits the most important factor - efficiency.

In my analysis I never stated that Ni prefers facts and standardized thinking taken at face value. You invented that, by not reading what I said in its entirety, and understanding my perspective first. I believe you read the phrase "status quo" and automatically plugged that into your Ni, and generated all sorts of assumptions, far from my intended thought. "Status quo" in the sense that I intended, is quite a bit more global. An SJ prefers the status quo as well, but in the sense that their status quo is to maintain specifics. Ni seeks to maintain status quo by maintaining a general semblance of a vision, a general perspective. By nature, Ni then is much more flexible, only because a vision (Ni) is not attuned to details (Se). Hopefully you can see the difference I am aiming to convey here.


> Ni preceding Te creates an ad hoc approach in which the type seeks to impose their intuition onto reality, regardless of how supposedly "plausible" such a thing may be. They literally seek to control their environment and actualize their intuitive visions and inclinations out in reality, which requires an empirical understanding of said reality. That entails emphasis on experimentation and direct observation. We see in that in a plethora of INTJs from Augustus Caesar to Tesla.
> 
> Where the op was going on about Te sharing it's thoughts with others. I'm not share where he got that from but it has nothing to do with Te. The best way to understand the thinking functions;
> 
> ...


Sure. (no argument)


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I have somewhat of a need to put my thinking in a format that I can look at more closely (such as writing) but I don't necessarily need to share it with anyone - the sharing part is more of a post-analysis "let's see if this can stand on its own two legs" kind of test.

I almost never share a half-formed idea, unless I know I'm talking to someone who will respect and listen to my idea with an open mind. My half-formed ideas are often blatantly unsupported and theoretical at best.

Which is why, under the right circumstances, I can look like I have a well-thought-out answer for everything; you just aren't seeing the stuff that I haven't thought out.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

750ko said:


> I've been analysing and comparing the functions of two friends, one who's ENTP (auxiliary Ti) and one who's INTJ (auxiliary Te).
> 
> The ENTP share his thinking more often than the INTJ, and i find the INTJ thinking silently more often.
> 
> ...


You have this a little bit backwards. ti meaning someone introverts their thinking - not about sociableness or talking.
It is about where a person focuses. I need to understand things at a conceptual level, I see my own mental processes or my own way of figuring something out, or I see how this fits with my experience, or I see something worked out in theory because it is logical, but I'm walking through it in my own head.

Te is outward focused, results are not just facilitative, what maters is results- or knowing what can be verified as fact - outside yourself


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

750ko said:


> I've been analysing and comparing the functions of two friends, one who's ENTP (auxiliary Ti) and one who's INTJ (auxiliary Te).
> 
> The ENTP share his thinking more often than the INTJ, and i find the INTJ thinking silently more often.
> 
> ...


As an ENTP, I am a Ne dom, my auxiliary Ti works with my Ne to help organize my thoughts. I believe part of my process is using others as a "sounding board" to help improve my ideas. I actively seek out differing perspectives because, in my estimation, it can only make my ideas better. I sometimes think our reputation for debate is also a method of drawing better ideas out of others (although it sometimes creates animosity in others).


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> It is not switching of perspectives that is draining, but rather having to redefine Ni entirely. When information can be taken in and integrated into Ni smoothly, this is when the INxJs consider themselves "open minded". Really it's not true open mindedness! It's just very skillful integration and glossing over details (limiting Se). It's getting the "gist", and perhaps twisting an already established perspective just a bit. It's paradoxical, because at times just a small shift in Ni can produce an entirely contradictory result. Again, this does not mean that perspective itself has radically changed internally, but rather just bent/shifted direction, but mostly kept its base structure.


I think you've got one thing a bit off here and it's understandably hard to see, unless you're an Ni-dom: Though I can't speak for all INTJs, I have real trouble with taking any position concretely and exclusively. In fact, one of the main things I struggle with is the weighing of options - particularly when it comes to philosophical positions. I'm so often confronted with equally convincing arguments/information from two different sides of an issue that I tend toward finding a middle-ground position to hold, almost as a kind of defense mechanism.

This doesn't mean I'm necessarily more wrong or more right than other people, but it does have a distinct advantage: I tend to come up with perspectives that are not being discussed - ways of looking at something that people haven't thought of. 

How this differs from what you're describing is that the "vision" in question is actually much more nebulous and loose-weave than it may appear (at least for me). I mean, yeah, I establish _some_ things because without doing so, I wouldn't be able to tell down from up and get through an average day. 

But ultimately, nothing is safe from being questioned/prodded in some way or another. I would like to know how exactly you define "true" open-mindedness, as you seem to be taking ownership of the term to utilize it as you please.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

LostFavor said:


> I think you've got one thing a bit off here and it's understandably hard to see, unless you're an Ni-dom: Though I can't speak for all INTJs, I have real trouble with taking any position concretely and exclusively. In fact, one of the main things I struggle with is the weighing of options - particularly when it comes to philosophical positions. I'm so often confronted with equally convincing arguments/information from two different sides of an issue that I tend toward finding a middle-ground position to hold, almost as a kind of defense mechanism.
> 
> This doesn't mean I'm necessarily more wrong or more right than other people, but it does have a distinct advantage: I tend to come up with perspectives that are not being discussed - ways of looking at something that people haven't thought of.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you are an INTP.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Perhaps you are an INTP.


I'd be a liar and undermine my own claims to indecisiveness if I said that I haven't contemplated the possibility. But it's incredibly unlikely, given everything I know and have studied about the theories.

That said, you didn't answer my question about "true open-mindedness." And furthermore, it's asinine to respond by questioning my type because I (presumably) presented something that conflicts with your understanding of what an INTJ is. It's also against the forum rules to do unasked-for questioning of someone's type.

Whatever open-mindedness is, you appear not to have it. Sad too, cause I thought you had some good insights about Ni.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I'd be a liar and undermine my own claims to indecisiveness if I said that I haven't contemplated the possibility. But it's incredibly unlikely, given everything I know and have studied about the theories.
> 
> That said, you didn't answer my question about "true open-mindedness." And furthermore, it's asinine to respond by questioning my type because I (presumably) presented something that conflicts with your understanding of what an INTJ is. It's also against the forum rules to do unasked-for questioning of someone's type.
> 
> Whatever open-mindedness is, you appear not to have it. Sad too, cause I thought you had some good insights about Ni.


I don't know if he questioned your type, as much as he made an observation-- The way you explain your cognition could sound like an INTP, and goes against what he knows of INTJs based on _his _research.

But, it's my opinion that most INTJs don't necessarily show their indecision. They're stubborn externally, and more uncertain internally, whereas INTPs are quite the opposite.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> I did not say that Ni dominants/aux do not prefer 'eye opening' experiences. On the contrary, it can be implied by my tone, that I believe it is exactly what is preferred, hence why it is these experiences that can illicit change of opinion.


Tone? It can't, absolutely be implied by your 'tone' that you mean anything. Interpretation of information being, by definition subjective. What can be implied is that by saying "The INTJ goes in with a firm desire to reject information" is that that is what's actually preferred. What we can extrapolate from that is that rejection of information is our base stance, which is somehow being attributed to Ni, for whatever reason I can only speculate on when in actuality, rejection is a Thinking process. It can't be stressed enough that Ni is completely indifferent to information.



> Really what's happening here at a deeper level, is that an experience must be very potent in order to thoroughly shake the foundation that Ni has conjured as a preferred perception base. It is the unconscious struggle against inferior Se. In the cases where Se is provoked by that stress, then that is when an epiphany occurs. Epiphanies are nothing more than a completely new orientation of Ni taking shape, done at a subconscious level. The reason why Ni dominants claim to have the strongest epiphanies, is simply because their Pe is inferior and completely subconscious, and dominant Ni requires the most work to make a complete shift in perspective. As has been stated by some other posters, Ni is quite adept at shifting perspectives and incorporating new information into Ni - but in a sense this is a resistance to modifying view, not an pure shift in Ni. It is just that Ni based perception is zoomed so far out, that the details that would make perspectives unique are ignored, and everything is all rationalized and bundled up in big large vats of hyperbole - UNTIL the epiphany happens, and Ni has no choice but to grow and completely modify its basis of perception.


I think this has more to do with factuality of the information the INJ is taking in. Ni is perception. By definition, all it does is take in new information. The acceptance or rejection of this process is a function of Thinking. It has nothing to do with Ni whatsoever. What you're likely experiencing is rejection of information based on what is factually verifiable or observable, which you're going to experience with any xxTJ. Ni, as has been stated already doesn't take a particular stance on information, it just regards it as arbitrary data for development.



> Interestingly enough, I have also noticed that Ni dominants especially, when drunk/stressed, absolutely love to *create* eye opening experiences for others. They desire to frame themselves in a different light that others are used to, and act in very unusual ways, which is essentially just their Se breaking free. I have all kinds of stories. Hilarious ones.


Meh. I wouldn't know. I don't drink.




> The development of Fi can be a big factor here. It's true that there will be varying levels of openness to discussion. Generally speaking, the more intelligent INTJs are actually the most difficult to reason with. The smartest INTJ I know frequently says "I don't want to argue about it", in a quite flustered way, whenever I try to debate with him. His own ego gets in the way, and he trusts his intuition above all else. It usually takes a good clean failure before he comes back with a willingness to hear my perspective more fully. I don't mind too much, as the breadth of thought I have put into the topics I discuss is generally quite vast, and not easy at all to take in all at once.


Likely due to them having developed enough opinions that are the most factually or self-evidently correct. It seems to me that your main issue here is with Thinking as opposed to with Ni. Possibilities being extrapolated based on behavior and attributed to Ni-Se as opposed to Judgment, which is what you primarily speak to when you debate with an Ni-Te user.



> It is not switching of perspectives that is draining, but rather having to redefine Ni entirely. When information can be taken in and integrated into Ni smoothly, this is when the INxJs consider themselves "open minded". Really it's not true open mindedness! It's just very skillful integration and glossing over details (limiting Se). It's getting the "gist", and perhaps twisting an already established perspective just a bit. It's paradoxical, because at times just a small shift in Ni can produce an entirely contradictory result. Again, this does not mean that perspective itself has radically changed internally, but rather just bent/shifted direction, but mostly kept its base structure.


I certainly don't experience this. I think we have completely different definitions of what constitutes open-mindedness. I can only assume and speculate what constitutes "true open mindedness" to you, but when I consider a perspective, whether or not I accept or reject it has more to do with it's factual correctness than anything to do with how difficult it is to readjust my understanding. Again, it sounds like you're mistaking the process of scrutinizing information (which has more to do with Judgment than anything to do with Perception) for closed mindedness. If you mean in the sense that all possibilities are accepted as being true, then I'd say you have your own definition of open mindedness that's not shared by many people in the world, open mindedness being entirely subjective. In that case what's happening is that you're creating your own definition for the term without considering the idea that others don't share that perspective, which, from a perspective, one could call not being open minded in it's own right.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Perhaps you are an INTP.


He's not. I experience something nearly identical in that I can adopt a perspective, but that I don't necessarily take ownership of it. 

You're not addressing what he actually said. Instead you choose to extrapolate a conclusion based on your own observation that he's INTP because that doesn't fit your personal idea of what an INTJ is because your understanding is inherently incorrect. What is or is not INTJ is determined by how he actually is, not how you think he is.


----------

