# Are xNTJs better than xNTPs at strategy games? (And how do xNTPs get around this?)



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Well xNTPs have the upper hand in pulling something out of their ass, xNTJs have the upper hand in rubbing it all over the screen 

Knowing the game and preparedness kicks the shit out of whatever J or Pness you've got going on.


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

From my experience, it depends a lot more on the game... The more options I have, the better I am.

When I play against my xNTJ friends, they typically have a very good and super solid strategy in mind, but I usually find it pretty easy to figure out. Maybe not figure out how to beat it yet, but at least, for the most part, I know what it is. The more options I have in the game, the easier it is for me to counter whatever strategy I think they may be using. My strategy usually involves putting as much chaos into the game as I possibly can so that it confuses the hell out of them and they can't think of anything quick enough to counter. Then I'll usually come up with a clutch plan and a big gamble and that is how I win haha.

For example, in games such as catan or carcassone or even mafia type games, I am usually good at reading a person and categorizing their types of strategies. Then, I'll play the wildcard and just screw with everyone to the point where they dont really have any idea what I'm doing. Then I pull a win out of my ass and scrape by under the radar haha

That was redundant


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Intuition.


Ni vs Ne... It all comes down to which one works faster. Can you synthesize fast enough to keep track of me? Can I improvise fast enough to outstrip you?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I LOVE strategy games (duh). They're the type of games I always play the most and am naturally drawn to. I've played plenty of RTS, turn-based strategy games, city builders and so forth. And that's just computer stuff. 

Regarding Stracraft 2: I think the game is dynamic enough to allow for an NTP to have the upper hand of an NTJ. Yes, the environment is controlled but not as controlled as I think people think it is. I played very reactionary when I played. Dominance did indeed not come from limiting their options but to lull them into a false sense of security while I built a counter-strategy that hard-countered them. I always preferred doing that. I would often start with a safe but not particularly dangerous build and then aggressively switch when opportunity arose. 

As an example of the NTP vs NTJ scenario and Stracraft 2: one word - IdrA. Typical example of an INTJ and he always lost when he was unable to adapt to the situation because he planned way too far ahead in a highly predictable manner. 

I admit I think that being ENTP is better than INTP though, because I think I am a little too compulsive and too fast to rush to judgements at times instead of spending more time to observe. Cost me games when I used to play mobas. My ability to adapt was always my strength when I played WoW and raided at a hardcore level though. If someone fucked it up (and there was always someone), I would be the first one to adapt to the situation in such a manner that would still allow us to continue the encounter.

And yes, goddamn, APM was always my Achilles heel in SC2. I could think much faster than what I could act, especially when it came to micro. That was also my Achilles heel 2. I was much more micro-oriented over macro which makes sense because NeTi sees the details of the big picture rather than the big picture and then the details. No wonder NTJs are drawn to zerg that required more macro whereas I think Ti users probably preferred protoss. I felt that terran was always too brainless and boring even though I've seen interesting things done with terran. 

And I think there are ways to bypass poor sensor skills or practice them. One could argue that STPs would have issues because of their inability to conceptually grasp the game for example. 

I find that in multiplayer turn-based strategy games are more annoying to me unless it's Shadow Era. I tried to play some Heroes of Might and Magic online but I suppose again my issue is that the meta-game is so godamn macro-oriented. I was/am much better at mobas which is all about micro. I think I possess the potential to play mobas on a semi-professional level were I to play and practice daily.

Nowadays I tend to favor city builders though although the genre is not particularly popular unfortunately. It has much more of a micro to macro appeal than macro to micro. The only funny thing when I play city builders is that I tend to erase most of my entire city at some point to restructure the infrastructure lol.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> Ni vs Ne... It all comes down to which one works faster. Can you synthesize fast enough to keep track of me? Can I improvise fast enough to outstrip you?


I think it would be more a matter of experience, since introverted functions all deal with subjectivity. At first, Ne would probably have the advantage as it brings a wider range of expectations to bear, but as soon as Ni starts adapting, Ni will catch up real fast and possibly outmatch Ne, as Ne possesses more breadth, but not the depth of Ni.

Theoretically speaking, of course.

Ne would probably reach the conceptual limits of the game faster and lose interest in winning, as it would depend on the inherent complexity of the game itself for establishing potential boundaries. If the game is imbalanced (as many tend to be), then Ni will eventually find that dominant niche and exploit it fully. Ne would want to try every new thing, but Ni is more deconstructive and reductive, so Ne would potentially come up with a much wider range of possible strategies, whereas Ni would reduce the game to it's simplest and most efficient patterns, at which point the whole game becomes a streamlined, ritualistic, and repetitive system. At that point, Ni would loses interest as well, unless the principles of the game itself changed fundamentally.

In the end, both would lose interest in winning - Ne when it can't find any new ways to win, and Ni when it has deconstructed the game via reductio ad absurdum to it's simplest strategic form.


----------



## Anonynony (Jun 24, 2012)

I've never played a strategy game with anyone who wasn't a SF(if you can call Monopoly a strategy game!)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I think it would be more a matter of experience, since introverted functions all deal with subjectivity. At first, Ne would probably have the advantage as it brings a wider range of expectations to bear, but as soon as Ni starts adapting, Ni will catch up real fast and possibly outmatch Ne, as Ne possesses more breadth, but not the depth of Ni.
> 
> Theoretically speaking, of course.
> 
> ...


I think it ultimately hinges on the auxiliary and tertiary functions and their development. Saying who can think the fastest between Ne and Ni is probably a redundant approach in the end, because I think Te takes more time than Ti to judge. Theoretically speaking, I think the NTP will reach conclusions faster because of Si once Si can establish a known pattern. At least this seemed to be true between me and an INTJ receiving the same information but he did not judge the information before he had studied all of it, whereas I judged it before I had even started to get past the first sentence.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

The reason we find it easy to confuse xNTJs in strategy games, is that xNTPs don't play the game. We play the person in front of us. xNTJs learn how to play the game exceedingly well, but xNTPs are busy reading you, figuring out your patterns, your mindset, your likely strategies, and how best to counter them. That's why, when the game stops being relevant, xNTPs have an advantage, because all we have to do is knock you off-balance and cause you to expose the holes in your plans, and capitalize on our assessment of your psychological proclivities to take advantage of them.

In order to beat xNTPs with more reliability (assuming there's an equal division between chaos and control that renders each an equivalent advantage), there are a few things you can do. Number one, if you're devising a strategy, make it as flexible and general as possible, so that we'll find it harder to derail it and you'll be able to capitalize on any advantages we'll give you. Because you'll have a measure of control over the outcome, we'll essentially be rats in a maze, and may not understand what's going on until it's too late. However, this won't work in games where you legitimately can't control the outcome to a satisfactory degree, and it won't work if the xNTP has the capability to counter your plan, anyway (since we're more likely to create a general framework that can deal with what you're likely to throw at us and reverse it on you). However, if the game gives you adequate control over the outcome (but still leaves enough room for derailment to work as a viable strategy), this is a very useful option.

Number two, you can fake your psychological tendencies to fool us for a little while, until things have been arranged in a way that you'd be able to enact your plan. This is admittedly harder to do, and can be riskier because a) if the stakes are high enough, you may end up making costly mistakes that the xNTP will take advantage of anyway, and b) because some part of your natural style will probably slip through anyway. However, if you can successfully do this, it'll work great, because xNTPs are usually more defensive in the beginning, as we assess your various strengths and weaknesses and strategies, devising our own counter to them; if you messed that stage up for us, you'd already be a step ahead, which would be a step in the right direction. Also, doing this would allow you to get a good read on our capabilities, which would help you in modifying any strategies you'd want to use (but be careful of relying on what our past reactions were; we may simply anticipate what your likely impression was and do something to upset your next move).

The bottom line is, you have to remember that we're not playing a game. We're playing _you. _Whatever optimal strategies you devise won't help if the person in front of you can figure out what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how to stop you. Your ticket to winning is in being able to read us as well as we can read you. If you can mess with how we're likely to perceive you, then you'll go pretty far.

For the xNTPs... we already have the advantage in being able to get inside our opponent's head, so what would be useful to do would be to force them to play our game, not theirs. Once you begin playing the game, you've already lost, because the xNTJ is much better at playing the game than you are. However, when the game derails... that's when they'll have to play by your rules. Your focus should be on shaking them up, using their preconceptions against them to completely upset their contingencies, and taking advantage of any holes that pop up. The better you are at reading them, the more you can force them to think on your terms, not theirs. The more they think on your terms... the worse they'll do, because you're better at thinking like yourself than they are.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I think it ultimately hinges on the auxiliary and tertiary functions and their development. Saying who can think the fastest between Ne and Ni is probably a redundant approach in the end, because I think Te takes more time than Ti to judge. Theoretically speaking, I think the NTP will reach conclusions faster because of Si once Si can establish a known pattern. At least this seemed to be true between me and an INTJ receiving the same information but he did not judge the information before he had studied all of it, whereas I judged it before I had even started to get past the first sentence.


_EDIT: I am not nit-picking your post to be rude, but to provide some clarifications since I have invested a lot of money into researching MBTI and I believe the following information will clear up some misconceptions you have about the theory._

1. Te doesn't take more time than Ti to judge. The MBTI Manual Third Edition, by Isabel Myers-Briggs, specifically states this.

2. Your INTJ friend is not necessarily a representative sample of all INTJs. There are lots of variations within each type - for example, in a national sample shown in the MBTI Step II Manual, 42% of INTJs tested out-of-preference in preferring a "P" Open-Ended approach to their leisure activities rather than a "J" Planned approach. That's nearly half of all INTJs.

3a. Ti is your dominant function, Te is his auxiliary. This doesn't imply that his thinking is not as sharp or as quick as yours, just that he relies more on his intuition than you do, and so he tends to ignore it. This could be accounting for the discrepancy in speed as you described in situations where his intuition can't keep up, though, it has more to do with the balance of the dominant and auxiliary rather than any one function itself. Ti doesn't do anything without Ne or Se, for example - you cannot judge that which you cannot perceive, and you cannot perceive that which you cannot judge. This is a fundamental element of Jung's theory, explained in his book _Psychological Types_. No function operates independent of any other function. They (all 8 functions) happen in tandem, simultaneously. Function order only indicates the relative level of awareness we have of using each one - it is more like a measure of psychological value, demonstrating what our personal values are.

3b. _Addendum: at all times you are processing information using all 8 functions - even right now as you read this sentence, all 8 of your functions are processing reality around you. The function you are most conscious of using is your dominant function. If you are a lead introvert, then your auxiliary function is how you consciously interpret external conditions. If you are a lead extravert, then your auxiliary function is how you consciously interpret your internal conditions. However, the auxiliary functions takes *effort* - as it develops, it grows through stages, first being used as a coping mechanism in early life, and later, as it becomes stronger, it becomes less defensive and more compensatory. Therefore, adequate development of the auxiliary function is of supreme importance in good type development, and one should simply focus all of their effort on developing that function - the rest of the psyche naturally falls into balance on its own after that, no effort is needed at developing the rest._

4. Si doesn't work that way. It's a body-based physical sensory function. It perceives patterns in immediate sensory input, but it doesn't draw connections between things - implicit or explicit relationships are the purview of intuition, which is your auxiliary function. Because Ne and Si are your "middle" functions, it stands to reason you may simply be seeing them "blend" into each other, as neither of them are your naturally preferred ways of processing information. (By which I mean, they require a conscious effort to sustain and would ordinarily come as a burden - Si in particular is of great distress to ITPs, and the source of a great deal of anxiety about your health and safety.)


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> Whereas NTP's are much more effective in more dynamic games. My ENTJ dad usually wins at monopoly, but I can dominate in most FPS and MMO/RPG games, along with some sports games like FIFA12.
> 
> Anyone who plays FIFA will know what I'm talking about. I regularly win games online 3-1 or 4-1, with twice as many total shots and shots on target, yet I almost never have possession. Usually my percentage is around 40%, which is usually an indicator that you got dominated.
> 
> ...



That's because FIFA 12 is a far-cry (and PES is even worse) from a real football simulation. Counterattacking in FIFA 12 is tremendously easier than it is in real life, as is crossing and shooting.

I find it quite ridiculous and that is why I have stopped playing FIFA competitively (as has my best friend, who used to be ranked #2 in the world in 2007 and 2008 I believe); I want a football _simulation_, while FIFA gives me a football _game_. Any game has design flaws that are easily taken advantage of, and one of them is counterattacking.

In reality, not EVERY SINGLE COUNTERATTACK is going to succeed... even for the best counterattacking teams in the world, such as Manchester United or Real Madrid. It's also ridiculous to be able to counterattack teams such as Manchester City, which is essentially built as the anti-counterattack team.

Real life football tactics is very difficult to apply to FIFA 12. Assholes like you who exploit design flaws just piss me off even more, so it feels exceedingly wonderful when I beat people like you who like to use the cheapest, most ridiculous strategy just to get a win.

Just because it works in FIFA 12 doesn't mean your tactics are any good or effective. Speed kills in that game and is much more important than it is in real life - that is why teams such as Tottenham can easily destroy stronger teams such as Barcelona. It's not even funny, really. 

If counterattacking was the best strategy ever, then Manchester United should be dominating Europe every single year.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Fate said:


> That's because FIFA 12 is a far-cry (and PES is even worse) from a real football simulation. Counterattacking in FIFA 12 is tremendously easier than it is in real life, as is crossing and shooting.
> 
> I find it quite ridiculous and that is why I have stopped playing FIFA competitively (as has my best friend, who used to be ranked #2 in the world in 2007 and 2008 I believe); I want a football _simulation_, while FIFA gives me a football _game_. Any game has design flaws that are easily taken advantage of, and one of them is counterattacking.
> 
> ...


Oh, you're so fucking butthurt I'm literally laughing.

People like you don't beat me, because I've played, watched, and analyzed soccer for far too long to be beaten by anything other than exploitative gameplay or simple user error on my part.

And if you took the time to, perhaps, think ahead a post or two, maybe you'd come to the realization that my counterattacking style was based on United and Madrid since they are not only two of the best counterattacking teams in the game, _but also the subject of my undying loyalty and love.


_​Don't hate the player, brah. Hate your own flaws.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> Oh, you're so fucking butthurt I'm literally laughing.
> 
> People like you don't beat me, because I've played, watched, and analyzed soccer for far too long to be beaten by anything other than exploitative gameplay or simple user error on my part.



Sure, I will bow down to your tactical ingenuity and insight.




> And if you took the time to, perhaps, think ahead a post or two, maybe you'd come to the realization that my counterattacking style was based on United and Madrid since they are not only two of the best counterattacking teams in the game, _but also the subject of my undying loyalty and love._


_


_It's actually a bit difficult to imagine someone that can love those two teams equally (do you really understand what I'm getting at?)


​


> Don't hate the player, brah. Hate your own flaws.



It's very easy to play how you play and win 90% of my matches, but I just can't bring myself to use such a horrendously ugly tactic... sorry.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Fate said:


> Sure, I will bow down to your tactical ingenuity and insight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thanks!

not equal. United > Madrid. and yes, i understand.

so... you're complaining that winning is ugly? points are points. you don't get promoted in FIFA *or* in the EPL for playing beautifully, you get promoted for having the most points.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

That works in every single league.

I don't think we will get along very well, as I think United is a sort of... affront to how football should be played.

I know, I know, it's all subjective preference, but I'm OK with that (and I'm right).

And I would never complain that winning is ugly!!! Madrid wins beautifully, except for when they play Barcelona (but who can have more possession than Barcelona, ever?)

For the die-hard Madridista (from a historical perspective), playing a certain way was actually more of an imperative than winning. Ergo, the reason why Capello was fired despite winning them nearly everything.

Life is harder in Spain than it is in England... economically too, it seems.

Everything being said, I like having my cake and eating it too.


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Fate said:


> That works in every single league.
> 
> I don't think we will get along very well, as I think United is a sort of... affront to how football should be played.
> 
> ...


Barcelona and the rest of the Spanish teams are going to be screwed by the new taxation laws, just as France is. No new international is going to want to go to a country where they are taxed at a 50% higher rate than other competitive leagues, that's just simple economics.

And if you think United is an affront to football, then you also think the English game is an affront to football.

And that is insulting.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Dark Romantic said:


> The reason we find it easy to confuse xNTJs in strategy games, is that xNTPs don't play the game. We play the person in front of us. xNTJs learn how to play the game exceedingly well, but xNTPs are busy reading you...


Ni is not bound up in specific boundary conditions that make distinctions between "game" and "not game" - that's more to do with the thinking function.

Ni specifically serves the cognitive role of _breaking down barriers_ between distinctions and meanings, _synthesizing_ different kinds of information into new information. So, from the Ni perspective - the game does not exist. There is no game, and there are no players. There are no strategies, etc. Ni begins to _deconstruct_ reality, thus transcending the barriers of the thinking function - the thinking functions serves the purpose of categorizing information into logical structures and boundary conditions, the opposite of intuition, which is the abstraction and liquidation of information. One is the inverse of the other, balancing the other. This is the whole formation of C.G. Jung's work on typological theory.

So, it stands to reason that intuitive dominant types have the most abstract understanding of game theory in general. ENTPs and INTJs would approach the game not in a systemic way, but in a completely fluid and generalized way. Distinctions would be more subtle and less important to intuitive dominant types - instead, their focus is on implied connections and implied relationships - the relationship between the player and the game, the game and the self, the self and the world, etc, etc, etc.

This is not necessarily an advantage over thinking lead types - thinking lead types would have a much stronger understanding of the structure of the game. Intuitive leads would need a strong auxiliary thinking function to achieve any kind of rational approach to the game - otherwise, they're just mashing the buttons. Thinking types would need a strong auxiliary intuitive function in order to transcend the categorical boundaries of the game - to realize that the game includes more than just the pieces on the board and the players, but also, a butterfly flapping it's wings in China, you see?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

gingertonic said:


> Barcelona and the rest of the Spanish teams are going to be screwed by the new taxation laws, just as France is. No new international is going to want to go to a country where they are taxed at a 50% higher rate than other competitive leagues, that's just simple economics.
> 
> And if you think United is an affront to football, then you also think the English game is an affront to football.
> 
> And that is insulting.



Perhaps you are right regarding the taxation laws. Perhaps not. I cannot say as nothing is conclusively predictable, but what I can say with the utmost confidence is the name of "Barcelona" and "Real Madrid" will still carry the most significance and weight in the world of football clubs.

That said - I do find the English game quite ugly. Football should be played to the feet, not the head... don't you agree?

Now THIS... this is something spectacular to behold:






Sergio Ramos (a defender) has better ball skills than Theo Walcott!!! LOL


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Fate said:


> Perhaps you are right regarding the taxation laws. Perhaps not. I cannot say as nothing is conclusively predictable, but what I can say with the utmost confidence is the name of "Barcelona" and "Real Madrid" will still carry the most significance and weight in the world of football clubs.
> 
> That said - I do find the English game quite ugly. Football should be played to the feet, not the head... don't you agree?
> 
> Now THIS... this is something spectacular to behold:


No, football should be played *with* the head. It is smart to combine possession play and hard, fast counterattacking.

Would you really say that United does not play a beautiful game? With players like Beckham, CANTONA (!!!!), Giggs, Best, SCHOLES (who even Xavi has admitted is the best center midfielder and possession player the game has ever seen), it is hard to deny the beauty of the United game.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

SAF refuses to play the game, even against weaker teams. He's done that for a long time now. Those players you mentioned are either retired or half dead now; the current incarnation of United is nothing like its old teams.

And I must disagree about Scholes... Andrea Pirlo (and I HATE the Italians).


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Ni is not bound up in specific boundary conditions that make distinctions between "game" and "not game" - that's more to do with the thinking function.
> 
> Ni specifically serves the cognitive role of _breaking down barriers_ between distinctions and meanings, _synthesizing_ different kinds of information into new information. So, from the Ni perspective - the game does not exist. There is no game, and there are no players. There are no strategies, etc. Ni begins to _deconstruct_ reality, thus transcending the barriers of the thinking function - the thinking functions serves the purpose of categorizing information into logical structures and boundary conditions, the opposite of intuition, which is the abstraction and liquidation of information. One is the inverse of the other, balancing the other. This is the whole formation of C.G. Jung's work on typological theory.
> 
> ...


Well, it would basically be the interplay between Ni+Te vs Ne+Ti: in INTJs, for example, you would combine what you had perceived on the board, and see the game as a more abstract framework (not a rule and principle bound one, like an INTP), perhaps with its overall picture and dynamic becoming clear to you. You would recognize the essence of the game, and how each part is related to the picture. Therefore, Te would provide you with the ability to map through that picture/dynamic according to the most optimal means available to you; however, the person in front of you will be an enigma, unless it's already someone you know, because they can have any number of effects on the game. In this case, it will be more difficult to accurately chart their place in the overall picture, which is why creating quick, accurate assumptions is so important for NTJs, and why overturning them is key to messing up your strategies. However, your grasp of the picture (meaning here, the game) would, in theory, be impeccable. It's why the overall strategizing will likely be good, because you will get a good intuitive reading on the nature of the game being played, as well as the best way to navigate this structure, but the variables will trip you up, because the extra variables will distort the picture, and thus, the map forward.

As for ENTJs, I'm not sure, but I think they would probably do things in reverse. More short term planning coupled with instinctive understanding, rather than the deep, full perception and longer-term navigation of an INTJ.

Ne+Ti, on the other hand, doesn't see the game as one picture with a series of interlocking dynamics that can be moved in an optimized manner to achieve success. An Ne+Ti user would, instead, spot a series of patterns that are incomplete and waiting for more data to be brought to make their significance clear, then would compare the pattern sets against other, similar ones, and recall the general rulesets that were common to each in order to predict what will happen next. An ENTP would instead be waiting for more data to reveal itself, and then would superimpose his own reasoning onto it, trying to account for and incorporate all the different related patterns in his analysis. That's why an ENTP won't do as well with a contingency plan; it's because we don't see how everything fits together in one whole, merely how everything relates to something similar and how to tweak that similarity to our advantage. So, in games where simply spotting the similarity doesn't give anyone the power to play with it, ENTPs will fail, but in games where it's easier to play around with what could happen, ENTPs will find it easier to win. It's why we have to mess with your picture, because we can't see the picture and use it in the same way as you can; what we can do, though, is force you into a pattern and lead you off track, because we understand how to play with the patterns well enough.

INTPs, on the other hand, would probably lean more heavily on the unofficial rules and previous patterns than on the dynamic, in the moment reaction that an ENTP would.

So, while I agree that the intuitive doms (INTJs and ENTPs) will have a similar way of understanding the game, their playstyle will probably resemble their thinking dom counterparts more so than each other's.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_Dark Romantic_,

Intuition doesn't impose boundaries (variables) on information, it removes them. People are not any more of an enigma than a game or a sock with a hole in it. It does not perceive a difference between a chair and a cat, those distinctions are made via judgment.

Have you read Psychological Types by Carl Jung, Gifts Differing by Myers-Briggs, Personality Type by Lenore Thomson, or the MBTI Manual 3rd Ed? I recommend researching a bit more into how the functions work, your post is full of misconceptions that run rampant on the internet (especially in forums like PerC).


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> @_Dark Romantic_,
> 
> Intuition doesn't impose boundaries (variables) on information, it removes them. People are not any more of an enigma than a game or a sock with a hole in it. It does not perceive a difference between a chair and a cat, those distinctions are made via judgment.


I know what you're saying; intuition wouldn't create a defined boundary between is and is not. It would, however, have differing levels of clarity depending on the reliability of what was being seen. Introverted intuition is concerned with synthesizing what can be seen into one intuitive framework and/or conclusion. As an introverted function, it strives toward greater subjective clarity, so it consequently would be more sensitive to things which were unclear, like how a colorblind person would find it harder to perceive the exact shade in one of the colors he was deficient in. Extraverted intuition, however, doesn't deal with the greater nuances of creating a subjective framework; it's about perceiving the shades of meaning in objects and objectified situations. Therefore, it doesn't require the same clarity of perception, it only needs things to be perceived, while the judging function makes sense of them and relates them to the user. Ne on its own would just be meaningless pattern recognition. Ni has the subjective element that Ne lacks, so it consequently requires subjective clarity that Ne doesn't.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Dark Romantic said:


> I know what you're saying; intuition wouldn't create a defined boundary between is and is not. It would, however, have differing levels of clarity depending on the reliability of what was being seen. Introverted intuition is concerned with synthesizing what can be seen into one intuitive framework and/or conclusion. As an introverted function, it strives toward greater subjective clarity, so it consequently would be more sensitive to things which were unclear, like how a colorblind person would find it harder to perceive the exact shade in one of the colors he was deficient in. Extraverted intuition, however, doesn't deal with the greater nuances of creating a subjective framework; it's about perceiving the shades of meaning in objects and objectified situations. Therefore, it doesn't require the same clarity of perception, it only needs things to be perceived, while the judging function makes sense of them and relates them to the user. Ne on its own would just be meaningless pattern recognition. Ni has the subjective element that Ne lacks, so it consequently requires subjective clarity that Ne doesn't.


Right, but this doesn't imply that one finds "people" to be more enigmatic than "not people" - since those are judging distinctions. In the case of introverted intuition + extraverted thinking, you're perceiving the implicit similarity between various objective sources of information, thus transcending the categorical structure of the information, breaking down logical barriers and synthesizing new ones. There's no reason why an INTJ would have a harder time gauging his opponent than the game - Ni would break down that barrier, between the player and the game, and perceive them as a unified system -> the player is the game; the game is the player. They become one system to be understood holistically.

Ti-Ne would rely on a set of principles in order to begin. It makes an "educated guess" - and from there, it relies upon Ne to open up new avenues of progressive guesswork until it arrives back where it started at the beginning of the thought process. Ti-Ne is circular in this sense, it is like a sieve or a filter, and every time it filters new information, it builds a better framework for understanding.

The conceptual boundaries of the Ni-Te player would depend upon their objectivity. In other words, the Ni-Te player is actually doing the reverse of what you suggested - they are _resisting_ (with their auxiliary judgment) the overwhelming (dominant) urge to abstract outward and perceive the game and their opponent as the same thing, because that is their primary function. You see, that kind of perception is the _null state_ of Ni without extraverted judgment to categorize it and define it. Te (or Fe) is needed to choose from among available options, but it also supplies the choice itself - Ni doesn't make decisions. Rather, Te is the choice, and the decision combined, you see? Because Te is providing not only the framework for making a decision - it is also defining the choice to be made as well.

This is why INTJs research, research, research. Because in doing so, they are building up a framework for explaining their insight, as well as defining the insight itself. They rely on Te not only to control and objectify their surrounding environment, but also their inner environment. Without Te, they have no structure at all - inner or outer. Te is like a language that they use in order to "speak" with themselves, and with others. This is why Wittgenstein is usually classified as an INTJ. His famous "Private Language Argument" does an exceptional job at exemplifying how INTJs perceive knowledge as being _entirely_ external and language-based.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> Right, but this doesn't imply that one finds "people" to be more enigmatic than "not people" - since those are judging distinctions. In the case of introverted intuition + extraverted thinking, you're perceiving the implicit similarity between various objective sources of information, thus transcending the categorical structure of the information, breaking down logical barriers and synthesizing new ones. There's no reason why an INTJ would have a harder time gauging his opponent than the game - Ni would break down that barrier, between the player and the game, and perceive them as a unified system -> the player is the game; the game is the player. They become one system to be understood holistically.


I understand that. What I was saying, though, is that the person you're perceiving as "part of the game" cannot be relied upon to act predictably enough for the model to be as accurate. Te requires an accurate model to base the way forward on, and if the model is being constantly reworked, it forces the Te user to keep making suboptimal moves that take the person outside of the framework. I don't dispute that an INTJ would be able to take the person in front of them into account while planning (in fact, it would be pretty stupid not to do that), but I am saying that without a reliable prior assessment, a plan forward becomes weakened by things which challenge the structure of the model upon which the plan was based. 

Or rather, because Te is attempting to direct that which is perceived to an end suiting the user, changing what is perceived changes the end to which Te is forced to work. So, you could say we need to ruin the way Te does things, rather than the way Ni perceives them, but the only reliable way to do that is to mess up the initial conception of the model and force Te to navigate through murkier waters, so it comes down to the same thing. Ni doesn't make the plan, but the plan is based in Ni, so keeping things unclear to Ni will consequently lead Te down the wrong road.



> Ti-Ne would rely on a set of principles in order to begin. It makes an "educated guess" - and from there, it relies upon Ne to open up new avenues of progressive guesswork until it arrives back where it started at the beginning of the thought process. Ti-Ne is circular in this sense, it is like a sieve or a filter, and every time it filters new information, it builds a better framework for understanding.


So in other words, they would rely on their preconceived principles and try to see if the patterns spotted fit those principles? That makes sense. It would give the INTP a steeper learning curve, since they wouldn't be able to react as quickly, but they would benefit a lot more from experience, since experiential play would refine their principles and ability to spot patterns.



> The conceptual boundaries of the Ni-Te player would depend upon their objectivity. In other words, the Ni-Te player is actually doing the reverse of what you suggested - they are _resisting_ the urge to abstract outward and perceive the game and their opponent as the same thing. You see, that kind of perception is the _null state_ of Ni without judgment to categorize it and define it. Te (or Fe) is needed to choose from among available options, but it also supplies the choice itself - Ni doesn't make decisions. Rather, Te is the choice, and the decision combined, you see? Because Te is providing not only the framework for making a decision - it is also defining the choice to be made as well.


That's pretty much what I said earlier; Ni creates the picture, Te navigates it according to the criteria of optimization. I think we mean different things by "framework": when I say framework, I mean the general interlocking picture that Ni perceives, not a set of boundaries and judgements, which would be left up to Te.

So, is what you meant to say here that an INTJ won't be trying to perceive further, but will instead be trying to restrict their actions to what will yield the best results according to what they've seen?



> This is why INTJs research, research, research. Because in doing so, they are building up a framework for explaining their insight, as well as defining the insight itself. They rely on Te not only to control and objectify their surrounding environment, but also their inner environment. Without Te, they have no structure at all - inner or outer. Te is like a language that they use in order to "speak" with themselves, and with others. This is why Wittgenstein is usually classified as an INTJ. His famous "Private Language Argument" does an exceptional job at exemplifying how INTJs perceive knowledge as being _entirely_ external and language-based.


Interesting... so, I suppose INTJs perceive things as being relatively nebulous, yet carrying a personal significance, and must look for the proper definitions to capture the identity of what is being seen?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@_Dark Romantic_,

Pretty much, I think we're on the same page now. Your last couple of sentences are right on the money. As a Ni-Te user myself, my approach to information is "reductio ad absurdum." I _require_ Te judgment in order to impose an artificial conceptual boundary that gives meaning to what I perceive.

In the scenario of a game, it would be like saying "I need a set of external conditions in order to redefine them into new ones." I would then proceed with a strategy based upon those. Using my extraverted auxiliary judgment, I begin with an external set of known conditions, dominant Ni deconstructs them into abstractions, and then at some point the "aha!" moment strikes, as the deconstruction process links to some new set of potential external conditions that become subjectively evident as the correct decision. This is the same way (in theory) that ENTJs process information, but with INTJs, there is much more emphasis on the deconstructive side of the process, of course.

There really is no way to "trip up" the Ni-lead, because it is a subjective process. It almost entirely comes down to a battle of the auxiliary functions. For example, in the INTJ vs INTP scenario, the INTP will win if they can quickly predict more possible openings that fit into their framework for understanding the game. The INTJ will win if they can quickly recognize possible openings in a given set of conditions by knowing the correct framework to apply to the situation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> _EDIT: I am not nit-picking your post to be rude, but to provide some clarifications since I have invested a lot of money into researching MBTI and I believe the following information will clear up some misconceptions you have about the theory._
> 
> 1. Te doesn't take more time than Ti to judge. The MBTI Manual Third Edition, by Isabel Myers-Briggs, specifically states this.
> 
> ...


I don't see what you've written contradicts anything of which I've said. I never implied that he's not as sharp or not as quick as I am. (We don't know each other that well so I can't really judge, actually, whether I think he's smarter or as smart as I, but that's irrelevant.) I am saying that due to the nature alone of Te, he could not judge the information and dismiss it as fast as I could. I found a similar pattern with Si so I subconsciously ran it through an Ne scenario whether the information is useful or not according to this known pattern Si recognized and Ti drew the conclusion that it was not.

I think the nature of Te means that it takes more time for the NTJ to build the model but not because Ni is necessarily slower than Ne, but because Te must look for more data for Ni, because the Ni model is indeed much bigger than the Ne model. 

I want to clarify that I never wanted to imply that it hinges upon individual functions but solely on the relationships between functions but I thought this portion was so obvious in my last response I didn't even consider you could interpret it any other way. I was wrong as usual when I do this. I should learn to stop to assume that people can always naturally infer all the connections I am seeing and making with one sentence or one word due to Ne associations.

And of course I never claimed that he was representative of all INTJs. Neither am I representative of all INTPs. I do however think that the cognition pattern he and I DO use which represents a more general pattern of how INTJs and INTPs reach conclusions where the INTJ will appear to be slower because the INTJ requires more data to work with than the INTP due to the nature of Ni vs Ti. Again, this does not mean that the INTJ is slower at thinking. Whether Ni or Ne is faster I find it extremely hard to judge, but I am of the belief that they are equally fast due to the constant subconscious workings of them. However, because Ni hinges upon the data Te feeds the Ni model, the INTJ will first appear to be slower before he has built his framework and checked its validity. It's the latter portion that takes time for him. 

For the INTP, validity is not as relevant as we simply change our model while we're on the go and we reach judgements faster simply because we are only interested in a more general and less deep and complex framework. That is not to say that the INTP is not interested in or does not care about creating deep and complex models, I think the nature of Ti is quite on the contrary, but the INTP will judge information much faster once it has gotten a sense of the general idea of said information. In a real life situation it would be akin to have an INTJ and an INTP read the same research article but whereas the INTJ will probably feel compelled to read the entire article, the INTP might in fact be satisfied to just read the abstract and the conclusions and only scan for data that would imply a fallacious model if someone would point this out to him. (And I want to add that if the INTP is intelligent enough with strong Ne and Ti, this will probably rarely happen.)

Also, I want to point out the slight irony that you now seem to be of the belief that we do use all 8 functions  I remember that you once told me in the INTJ forum that this was not true when I asked briefly after I joined PersC.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TrailMix said:


> From my experience, it depends a lot more on the game... The more options I have, the better I am.
> 
> When I play against my xNTJ friends, they typically have a very good and super solid strategy in mind, but I usually find it pretty easy to figure out. Maybe not figure out how to beat it yet, but at least, for the most part, I know what it is. The more options I have in the game, the easier it is for me to counter whatever strategy I think they may be using. My strategy usually involves putting as much chaos into the game as I possibly can so that it confuses the hell out of them and they can't think of anything quick enough to counter. Then I'll usually come up with a clutch plan and a big gamble and that is how I win haha.
> 
> ...


Well with Ni we are better at taking the deluge of facts (Te) and building multiple concurrent strategies from that. And because of this we tend to be convoluted due to Ni's natural incarnation for internal disorder. I would hate games with too much uncertainty since it ends up being all about luck and nothing else. I don't think your Ne could help much either because it can't make sense of the deluge of possibilities (you just accumulate data before studying its quality).


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@LeaT,

Look, forget it. I was just trying to help you out. I'm not interested in debating with you, as you seem to just want to argue with me on every point I just made. I'm just trying to explain to you what the facts are, and the facts are that no function is "faster" than any other at anything.

I don't need you to lecture me about MBTI, I get all my information from the _source._


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> @_LeaT_,
> 
> Look, forget it. I was just trying to help you out. I'm not interested in debating with you, as you seem to just want to argue with me on every point I just made. I'm just trying to explain to you what the facts are, and the facts are that no function is "faster" than any other at anything.
> 
> I don't need you to lecture me about MBTI, I get all my information from the _source._


I wasn't trying to argue as much as I was trying to explain my own reasoning and framework since you questioned it. 

I still don't see the disagreement. What you seem to say that a function is not faster than anything seems to be the function's cognitive process or rather the speed of process. I never mentioned any of the sort. I was explicitly talking about the appearances of functions. I thought as much was clear in my last post.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I wasn't trying to argue as much as I was trying to explain my own reasoning and framework since you questioned it.
> 
> I still don't see the disagreement. What you seem to say that a function is not faster than anything seems to be the function's cognitive process or rather the speed of process. I never mentioned any of the sort. I was explicitly talking about the appearances of functions. I thought as much was clear in my last post.


Well, it wasn't clear to me, sorry.

_BTW: On an unrelated note, I just noticed your avatar is one of my favorite bands. Good stuff. *thumbs up!*_


----------



## Ed S (Jul 27, 2012)

My dad and mom are both ENTP and I'm INTJ. ENTPs are very unconventional types and this can make them more unpredictable. With strategy games some peoples strategies are very easy to read through once you start to see a pattern in their decision making. ENTPs can really get out of the box making them great at strategy games. My dad is the best pool player I've ever had the pleasure of playing. Pool is about finesse, skill and strategy. He was in the airforce when he was in his 20s and would hustle people out of money. He had a elaborate system for conning you out of money. He knew the bartender who would keep an empty bottle of vodka filled with water and would pour him water from this bottle all night and he would act drunk and play pool for money. He would just barely beat you and sometimes throw a game or two, but if you ever realized how incredibly good he was you would never ever agree to play him for money. I would give an edge to ENTP but it depends on the game. I am very good at certain games though I can remember being a kid and it would just get boring playing certain games with my friends because I would just win again and again until it was kind of awkward. Many games have some element of chance though so it's possible to beat someone who plays perfectly. I don't get that into games now. I know how to play chess but learned late so I'm not that good at it. I wish I had learned earlier in life it is the ultimate game of strategy. As farm as NTJs and NTPs I believe it depends on the stakes and the game.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Well, it wasn't clear to me, sorry.
> 
> _BTW: On an unrelated note, I just noticed your avatar is one of my favorite bands. Good stuff. *thumbs up!*_


No problem. Glad we're on the same page


----------



## TrailMix (Apr 27, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> Well with Ni we are better at taking the deluge of facts (Te) and building multiple concurrent strategies from that. And because of this we tend to be convoluted due to Ni's natural incarnation for internal disorder. I would hate games with too much uncertainty since it ends up being all about luck and nothing else. I don't think your Ne could help much either because it can't make sense of the deluge of possibilities (you just accumulate data before studying its quality).


But you forget Ti! If I already understand the dynamics of the game, then the information gathered by Ne can be easily categorized and thrown out there! haha


----------



## Ngg (Jul 22, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I LOVE strategy games (duh). They're the type of games I always play the most and am naturally drawn to. I've played plenty of RTS, turn-based strategy games, city builders and so forth. And that's just computer stuff.
> 
> Regarding Stracraft 2: I think the game is dynamic enough to allow for an NTP to have the upper hand of an NTJ. Yes, the environment is controlled but not as controlled as I think people think it is. I played very reactionary when I played. Dominance did indeed not come from limiting their options but to lull them into a false sense of security while I built a counter-strategy that hard-countered them. I always preferred doing that. I would often start with a safe but not particularly dangerous build and then aggressively switch when opportunity arose.
> 
> ...


I LOVE Sim City. Could play that game for hours.

Frickin' APM.
Interestingly, I find Zerg to be the most intuitive race. It's fairly streamlined in term of production and allows the most in-game flexibility since it's a reactionary race. Toss and Terran have very established build orders which turns me off since my Ne gets antsy. I'm also good at pioneering new tactics: burrowing banes under the opponent's future expo mineral line, attacking the building SCVs with two workers in 2v2, burrowing lings to block expo, etc.. Toss has the most versatile units though, so I can see its appeal. I would have probably played more with it if I hadn't spent so much time perfecting my Zerg.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ngg said:


> I LOVE Sim City. Could play that game for hours.
> 
> Frickin' APM.
> Interestingly, I find Zerg to be the most intuitive race. It's fairly streamlined in term of production and allows the most in-game flexibility since it's a reactionary race. Toss and Terran have very established build orders which turns me off since my Ne gets antsy. I'm also good at pioneering new tactics: burrowing banes under the opponent's future expo mineral line, attacking the building SCVs with two workers in 2v2, burrowing lings to block expo, etc.. Toss has the most versatile units though, so I can see its appeal. I would have probably played more with it if I hadn't spent so much time perfecting my Zerg.


I feel toss is more INTP and zerg INTJ. Although I wish I had picked zerg first  But since I picked toss I had to stick with it. I feel that toss is more versatile than what it would give light of though. As you say, many units and tactics are varied. I also think it's a more reactive race than terran at least. That's because of how warp gates work. I can essentially change my unit comp on spot if I must. Of course I speak of the late game aka macro game because as an NT that's the only thing I feel truly matters. Ironically enough however, I'm stronger or was strong in early game. Late game I became too scatter-minded unless I had the game in my mind. I found the transition between late and early game the worst I think. That's where I felt my decisions mattered the most.

Zerg is the least varied race although in my opinion (at least according to IdrA but then again, it might just be his INTJ think XD) this might change soon.

Expansion:
About toss being reactive, at least that's how I played. That's why I always failed doing 4gate rush because I was not aggressive and I failed with my timings. I hated to simply not know what the opponent did before I acted. That's why I say being ENTP is better because you're more action-oriented. I wanted to wait and observe. Sometimes I observe too much though. Also cost me games. Despite that, I do often open with 3 with robo or stargate or 4 gate, but that's more standard play anyway. That, or I do a cheesy VR rush or the occasional cannon rush because I love to troll. I would cannon rush for fun in 2v2. I didn't care if I won or lost, it was more the idea of cannon rushing that was so fun.

Early protoss game is not that varied but I think that's why I DO like it. The more options I have in a game, the harder it is for me to pick a strategy. I can't even decide on a strategy before I start playing even if I know my opponent. When I see the loading screen I already run scenarios in my head of what the opponent will do based on the map we will play, and then I simply look for data that would support or disagree with these suspicions.


----------



## Sarafina (Aug 12, 2012)

ENTP's win if there's less strict rules (war games like minitures etc), and I guess INTJ's might win if very strict rules (chess)...sometimes provided there's no time constraint.... I think strategy games usually require a great deal of intuition, but also usually don't do well with too much hesitation, and no risk taking...unless they like have a week to figure out a chess move or something like that.......


----------



## bleepblop (Jul 21, 2012)

at all but the highest level of play I don't think type matters. At anything less than the highest level of play I think familiarity and understanding of the game (builds or recent imbalances) will determine who wins much more often than type


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Aug 25, 2013)

I am so sick at board games. Rcently, I was the only girl and crushed five guys in a game of Catan. Obviously, part of the strategy was playing totally fucking dumb. 

They were devastated.


----------



## guyn1986 (Aug 23, 2013)

ENTJ's (such as yourself) are, obviously, incredibly good at strategy games because of that tenacious mind state you guys have of just knocking over every and enemy obstacle over seemingly flawlessly. ENTJs definitely make the quickest decisive decisions on the spot that are still so unbelievably rational that they have very little margin for error. However I think that ENTJs, although ridiculously intuitive, are the least outside the box of their NT cousins. So if any other NT were to go about beating an ENTJ, they would have to be on doing something extremely ingenious and something you don't see every day, that would catch the ENTJ by surprise. Whenever i'm playing any kind of strategy game I will, right off the bat, just do the most bazar, ridiculous, spontaneous, introspective (self proclaimed a lot of the time lol), and dangerous idea's in my starting scheme... and every once in while when one of my insane ideas works, I will then construct it by internalizing it rationally and logically setting up something that could potentially be unstoppable and genius crafted. Don't get it twisted, i'm not sucking my own dick here, i'm still below 50% winning when it comes to playing ENTJs. ENTJs are typically dominant consistently, while ENTPs whole life is trial and error... But when I do beat an ENTJ, even they are astonished.


----------



## Kysinor (Mar 19, 2009)

I really hope type does not determinate how good you are at a (strategy) game. To me that would be both unfair and boring (considering you can't change your type). Skill, effort and time spent should in my opinion determinate to a certain extent how good you are at a game... (there probably are other such similar factors but I don't have an idea what those might be at the moment)... but that might actually not be actual reality...


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm ok at strategy games. Not the best. I tend to micromanage too much and then I miss the big picture. I don't like commanding a giant army spread out across a large area because then I can't devote full attention to places that need it, so I just end up micromanaging one small part and then I lose. I'm fantastic at FPSs though.

Also, why are we necroing threads. Thread was dead for like an entire year.


----------



## Castironpan (Jun 17, 2013)

I've never been very competitive but when I have the desire to win, I do. 

However, games are for fun, not for winning. I don't get a huge joy from winning, especially all the time. I have more fun performing complicated unconventional tactics to see the results, even if it means I have to lose.


----------



## SA1988 (May 25, 2012)

nujabes said:


> Y
> 
> But I've essentially mastered the balls-out counter attack. I'll let my opponent keep possession and pass around me, but I'm either going to score or put a solid shot on target within 15-20 seconds of getting the ball back.
> 
> ...


This, x1000.

Actually quite recently I thought of exactly what you just said, but not just applied to games (because my gaming doesn't really stretch much further than Temple Run).

I go indoor climbing quite regularly. I've noticed that a lot of climbers are very methodical, they go step by step, one move at a time, keeping perfect balance, expending as little energy as possible, as if they are perfectly tuned robots, moving up the wall in the one, true correct method.

Then one day I took my girlfriend with me. Now, she's an ENTP and I am an INTP. I suddenly realised that we both have an utterly different style of climbing compared to most other people. We both don't care about how it's done, we just care about finishing. We climb like monkeys, just doing whatever seems right at the time, using way too much energy, throwing ourselves up the wall, straining our muscles till they burn, but completing it in a fraction of the time.

It just made so much sense! The NTJ style versus the NTP style.

Interestingly, in this instance I can see the strength in both sides. Consider a climbing competition where there's a limit of 2 minutes to get up the wall. The NTJ climber will go slowly, smoothly taking care of each step, finishing in a seemingly flawless fashion, using up almost all of their 2 minute limit. The NTP climber will rocket up the wall, falling down several time, but will have enough time to try again and again, until suddenly they make it and set a new record for how quickly it had ever been done. Both passed the round, both took the same amount of overall time, but both had completely different methods of doing it.

----------------------------------------------

As far as gaming goes... my dad (ENTJ) is the boss of all strategy games. When I play them, I just hoard resources until I can build a monumental army and crush everything in great one crusade around the whole map. This is a bad technique though, it only really works against AI players. Definitely my forte would be games of a more impulsive, quick-thinking nature. When I was a kid I could play Unreal Tournament on the 'Godlike' difficulty setting.

Generally strategy games bore me if I actually have to think strategically. Definitely more of an NTJ thing, I think.

I think the only semi-comparable form of game where an NTP might have more fun is a simulation game, where there's no end goal. For example, Simcity. That would be fun because it's just about tweaking the little mechanical processes to make it run more, or less, efficiently. It's just a bunch of variables. "If I build a road here... voilà! Booming economy! Ok... what if I stick an airport nearby~... hmmm, _interesting_."


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

boblikesoup said:


> I'm an ENTJ and pretty much nobody can beat me at board games unless they are all teaming up on me (and even still sometimes...). My last game was Axis & Allies against a pretty smart INTP who'd played more times than me. Still raped him.
> 
> I think Te's deductive nature combined with Ni's insightfulness allow us to objectively reduce game mechanics to their simplest forms and work with them like math.
> 
> My best opponents are INTJ's.


I challenge thee to a game of Axis & Allies. (I assume you play Revised edition?) :tongue:


----------



## boblikesoup (Nov 26, 2011)

Live in SF. Bring it.


----------



## Improbable_Violence (Jul 7, 2013)

I don't think we're inherently better at them as a type, but I've seen a trend where my xNTJ friends and I tend to pick up on strategies faster than others I know. I think it's not because we're better strategists, but rather because we have a tendency to get a lot more focused and intense about the game. I know when my xNTJ friends and I play games like Risk and Monopoly it quickly becomes a slug-fest where we're intensely dueling and everyone else is just kind of sitting there waiting for one of us to kill the other. That type of competition promotes cunning and careful observation, so we're quicker to learn and implement new ideas.

My favorite board game ever is chess, and while I don't see myself as very good at it (I maxed out my Elo rating at ~1600 exactly once [due to sheer luck] and normally stabilize at around 1500), the only person who's been able to consistently challenge me is my ENTJ high school history teacher. But again, I don't see it being caused by type, but rather that xNTJ types would generally be more interested in things like that than others. I could be wrong.

My weaknesses start to show when I'm playing a strategy game that also requires you to manage tactics, such as an ancient computer game called Rise of Nations. When I'm forced to focus on both the overall objective _and _the methods necessary to achieve it, I very quickly either lose sight of what I was trying to do or my grand plan gets trashed because the execution had all the grace of a machine gun trying to mow a lawn.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Imachination said:


> I don't think we're inherently better at them as a type, but I've seen a trend where my xNTJ friends and I tend to pick up on strategies faster than others I know. I think it's not because we're better strategists, but rather because we have a tendency to get a lot more focused and intense about the game. I know when my xNTJ friends and I play games like Risk and Monopoly it quickly becomes a slug-fest where we're intensely dueling and everyone else is just kind of sitting there waiting for one of us to kill the other. That type of competition promotes cunning and careful observation, so we're quicker to learn and implement new ideas.
> 
> My favorite board game ever is chess, and while I don't see myself as very good at it (I maxed out my Elo rating at ~1600 exactly once [due to sheer luck] and normally stabilize at around 1500), the only person who's been able to consistently challenge me is my ENTJ high school history teacher. But again, I don't see it being caused by type, but rather that xNTJ types would generally be more interested in things like that than others. I could be wrong.
> 
> My weaknesses start to show when I'm playing a strategy game that also requires you to manage tactics, such as an ancient computer game called Rise of Nations. When I'm forced to focus on both the overall objective _and _the methods necessary to achieve it, I very quickly either lose sight of what I was trying to do or my grand plan gets trashed because the execution had all the grace of a machine gun trying to mow a lawn.


As a RoN player, I find the AI build order and resource management ok, but it's tactical judgement is quite narrow I feel. It doesn't recognize when an attack isn't worth the cost, it just goes "oh, he has this, I have this, I should win if I attack" when clearly cycling your units in and out of barracks and towers costs a 1/3 or less of the price to repel him, not including the cpu's loss of economic initiative by early army building.

It doesn't make cheap-space grabs (Temple + Religion / Forts / or scout the direct it wants to expand into) despite the lucrativity of the resources. Undervalues Sea superiority.

Restricted use of scouts: "Scouting, looks weak, attack".
As opposed to keeping eye on capital sac-ing potential, timing attacks with other enemy advances and spy-vigilance.

They occupy the centre ground in 4+ games (mobility confers no advantage when all nations put you on the defensive)

Pretty sure i'd be pwnd in online play though.


----------



## Kirschen (Oct 5, 2013)

I feel a little inferior commenting after all the detailed and insightful posts on this thread :tongue:

I don't think xNTJs are any less adaptable than xNTPs; it can definitely appear that way though. I think it's more that xNTJs have more focused, structed strategies from the beginning, whereas xNTPs have strategies that are more open-ended and 'spread-out' so to speak. In my experience xNTJs also get relatively more mentally involved in games than xNTPs, and are a lot more focused on what's happening on the board/screen, which means that the less focused xNTPs with less-detailed and kind-of unstructured strategies often have to revert to choatic tactics to throw a sturdy opponent...that and it makes the game a bit more interesting. :laughing:


----------



## bluebeer (Oct 8, 2014)

Guys I have to say something. I own in monopoly against almost everyone. (rarely do I lose) but then again my type is fit for this. also there is this game called jungle heat I dominate in. (its war based) im very good for my level. basically I kill everyone 8 levels above me some 10 levels above me and so on becoming less of a chance. but then these guys 50 levels above me come killing me and they have more advanced technology. back to the point NTJs will be better in more controlled games while NTPs will be better in unpredictable strategy games.


----------



## ZaneCross (Oct 5, 2014)

Strategy games? Now that is my element. Given time to think, I am undefeatable at chess. Although, I do tend to let others win at times, whereas my INTJ friend views it as wrong to let someone win. I am totally serious, she genuinely believes it to be wrong to let others win at anything, as that robs them of a true victory.

So, I guess the question is more whether the INTP is actually trying to win. Otherwise, I would say that INTP and INTJ are about even.


----------



## Dice (Sep 20, 2014)

Ambiguous said:


> And how do xNTPs get around this?


Get good.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Well, I must say that my NTJ parents usually beat me at strategy games like chess or checkers but when we play something that requires spontaneity and improvisation, I'm better than them :tongue:


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

I would say in my experience NTs are the better strategists, but the ENTP I play with is also a valuable team member. He has his eye on the long term goal (how to win), but is rather impatient with strategy. He usually makes decisions and moves on even before everyone (in a cooperative strategy game) as agreed. He "trolls" a lot if it's not cooperative, doing sneaky things like "stealing" or causing general chaos to other players etc.

I like playing with my INTJ friend because we are more practical when it comes to choosing the execution of a strategy (weighing pros and cons). He is less impulsive and thinks quietly to himself before announcing his ideas, whereas the ENTP and I are usually conflicting. Then the INFP is a stickler for rules (that purist) and always tries to save everyone on the board.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

How'd it go?
INTJs-predict every move perfectly
ENTJs-will only play if they get to play both sides
INTPs-try to modify the rules to fit their liking
I don't remember where I heard this or the ENTP one


----------



## S33K3RZ (Oct 18, 2014)

For context, it also matters by what you mean by better. 

From my personal experience xNTPs tend to do better if time is not an element for the will min-max the ultimate strategies but take longer to get there; they usually have a higher maximum potential capacity with all other things being equal. xNTJs tend to do better initially though when both players are equally new players and both have little exposure to the game at all.

There are many different aspects to consider though; for example an INTP such as myself will likely stop playing a game after the master it. But there is a sweet spot when xNTP's are near mastery and not yet bored where they pwn other players. One of the two groups may be more likely to troll more (guess) etc.


----------

