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



## Mark Novbett

*Key Differences between the NT Rationals*

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

All NTs (Rationals) share in common:


Pragmatic, self-contained, focused on Problem solving.
Pride themselves in being: Ingenious, Independent and strong-willed.
Trust logic over emotions, yearn for knowledge, prize technology, dream of understanding - the world.
 
Now that, those are ticked off as the common ground, we come to the point of differences within the NT rationals.

The ENTJ (Fieldmarshal): 

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

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

The INTJ (Mastermind):

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

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

The ENTP (Inventor):

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

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

The INTP (Architect):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter"


----------



## Grunfur

*...*

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

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


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow

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


----------



## Stephen

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Mark Novbett

Stephen said:


> Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.
> 
> That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.
> 
> ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.
> 
> INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.
> 
> INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.
> 
> ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.


No, these are taken from his book: Please Understand Me II. No, he was not short sighted nor are they descriptions of different personalities. If he was, so was Plato, Aristotle, Galen. And everything we know about personalities and character types comes from those three great ones.

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


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

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




> Plato’s Rationals, Aristotle’s Dialecticals, Myers’s NTs, whatever their
> name, have something very important in common with the Idealists and
> Artisans, and little in common with the Guardians. With the Idealists they
> share a predominantly abstract manner of communicating their messages,
> and with the Artisans a predominantly
> utilitarian manner of implementing
> their goals. Of necessity we communicate
> messages with words, and
> implement goals with tools, and thus
> these two dimensions, word usage and
> tool usage, constitute the underlying
> basis of personality development. As
> shown in the matrix at the side, the
> base of NT personality is their unique
> combination of abstract word usage
> with utilitarian tool usage. It is for
> this reason that I think of Plato’s Rationals as the “Abstract Utilitarians.”
> Since these two dimensions are the bases of personality development, it is
> well that we examine them in some detail.





> Abstract Word Usage
> Abstract words refer to imaginable things, concrete words to observable
> things. Rationals talk little of what is observable and much of what is
> imaginable. They are inclined to speak more of what can be seen only with
> the mind’s eye, conceptual things rather than perceptual things, ideas rather
> than objects. All of us, of course, can observe what is before us as well as
> imagine what is not. But this does not mean that we do both equally. Very
> early in life we begin to exercise one focus of language—observables or
> imaginables—more than the other, and we continue to do so throughout
> life. Like the NFs, the NTs choose the imaginative, conceptual, or inferential
> things to speak of over the observational, perceptual, or experiential.
> In conversation Rationals try to avoid the irrelevant, the trivial, and the
> redundant. They will not waste words, and while they understand that
> some redundancy is necessary they still are reluctant to state the obvious,
> or to repeat themselves on a point, limiting their explanations and definitions
> because they assume that what is obvious to them is obvious to others.
> 
> 
> NTs assume that if they did state the obvious their listeners or readers
> would surely be bored, if not offended. Their tacit assumption is that what
> is obvious to them is obvious to others, and the overly terse and compact
> style of speech that results is hard for others to follow. Because of this
> Rationals sometimes lose their audience and wonder why.
> 
> The basis of coherence in Rational thought and speech is deductive
> inference. This basis has much in common with the inductive inference of
> the Idealists, little in common with the harmonic thought and speech of the
> Artisans, and nothing in common with the associative thought and speech
> of the Guardians. Although inferential, induction requires the so-called
> “intuitive leap,” a leap only dubiously taken by NTs, even when it is
> necessary to get on with their current speculation. On the other hand,
> associative thought and speech requires topic hopping, something NTs
> will only occasionally and reluctantly do, and only as an excursion before
> returning to the unfinished topic. And harmonic thought and speech requires
> selecting and arranging words for the way they sound, a skill not usually
> acquired by Rationals, though some (like Shakespeare) can become masters
> of it when they take it as their province.
> 
> While we cannot observe deductive thought (going from general to
> specific, whole to part), we can observe the language that makes it possible.
> Defining words to limit their usage is a deductive process, so too is arranging
> words in logical order to control coherence, and so too is choosing words
> to control shades of meaning. Thus, the coherence, reference, arrangement,
> and choice of words tend to be done deductively by Rationals.
> 
> Rationals are unusually exacting about definitions. Our words can have
> distinct reference only if we are careful in defining them, and so NTs
> make distinctions, lots of them, most of the time. Indeed, they’re sometimes
> called “nitpickers” and “hairsplitters” by other types. NFs are even affronted
> by NT hairsplitting, bent as they are on erasing the NTs’ finely drawn
> distinctions. But Rationals don’t mind being teased with such names because
> they assume that their distinctions enable them to control arguments and, it
> might be added, enterprises. The way Rationals see it, whoever controls
> categories, controls useful operations. They leave control of other things to
> others.
> 
> Many Rationals are dictionary readers, even specialty dictionaries—anthropology,
> aphorisms, etymology, law, medicine, philosophy, psychology,
> slang. Some spend a good deal of time with their dictionaries, and so are
> aware of definitions and word families, of roots and derivations, of denotations
> and connotations, things the other types are content to gloss over.
> While their word arsenal grows through the years, Rationals also tend
> to enjoy playing with words, finding pleasure in puns and paradoxes. They
> are delighted by comments such as Einstein’s reference to mathematics:
> “The laws of mathematics, as far as they refer to reality, are not certain,
> and as far as they are certain, do not refer to reality.” And the more
> puckish of them are tickled by Disraeli’s retort to Gladstone. Gladstone:
> 
> “You will either die on the gallows or from syphilis.” Disraeli, in instant
> repartee: “Depending on whether I embrace your morals or your wife.”
> Rationals are careful in subjoining one word to another to avoid errors
> of sequence or of category. An obvious sequence error would be to join
> the word ‘meow’ to the word ‘dog’ such as in saying that “The dog’s
> meow is worse than its bite.”
> 
> Everyone minds such obvious errors, but the
> NT, far more than others, is mindful of unnoticed errors of category that
> result in subtle contradiction. For example, the expression ‘disorder leads
> to chaos’ presumes that chaos differs from disorder, when in fact the
> words are synonymous. Chaos cannot follow disorder because it is disorder.
> Errors of category are just as scrupulously avoided by Rationals. For
> example it’s a mistake to say that “there were weeds among the plants”
> because weeds are plants, the latter being the category that weeds belong
> to. NTs frequently note such trivial errors of category in others’ speech,
> but they rarely comment on them. However, let the error occasion contradiction
> in an argument being made, and NTs are compelled by their very
> nature to point out the error.
> 
> Many Rationals are obsessed with speculative enquiry, so their speech
> tends to be laced with assumptions and presuppositions, probabilities and
> possibilities, postulates and premises, hypotheses and theorems. In such
> speech data plays only a supportive and secondary role, as does the merely
> factual. It is this feature of their language—their disinterest in dative and
> factual information—that sets NTs farther away from their concrete cousins,
> the SPs, and their concrete opposites, the SJs. Hegel, the most arrogant of
> the German philosophers, is credited with (and condemned by some for)
> saying “if the facts do not comport with my theory, so much the worse for
> the facts.” Facts, say the NTs, cannot speak for themselves, but must be
> spoken for by those conversant with and observant of the canons of logic.
> Above all else Rationals want to be coherent in their arguments, and so
> they try to make certain that each phrase and clause advances the argument,
> introducing nothing that doesn’t logically belong, and leaving out nothing
> that is logically required. This style produces carefully crafted communications,
> NTs tending to qualify their statements with modifiers such as ‘likely,’
> ‘probably,’ ‘usually,’ ‘occasionally,’ and ‘in some degree.’ Note how concerned
> the great anthropologist James Frazer is with the accuracy of his
> statements in The Golden Bough, and how he qualifies almost everything
> he says, as if he cannot allow himself to overstate his case:
> Now that the theory, which necessarily presented itself to me at first in
> outline, has been worked out in detail, I cannot but feel that in some
> places I may have pushed it too far. If this should prove to have been the
> case, I will readily acknowledge and retract my error as soon as it is
> brought home to me. Meantime my essay may serve its purpose as a first
> attempt to solve a difficult problem, and to bring a variety of scattered
> facts into some sort of order and system.
> 
> Rationals can also become highly technical in their vocabulary. Not
> only will they use an extensive, erudite vocabulary (the speech of William
> F. Buckley, Jr., is a good example), but NTs in emerging scientific or
> technological fields will often develop their own high-tech terminology to
> talk about their theories and inventions—thus the computerese of the 1980s,
> with its esoteric vocabulary of ‘RAM,’ ‘ROM,’ ‘bits,’ ‘bytes,’ and so on.
> The opposite of high-tech speech is small talk, a way of communicating
> in which Rationals are notoriously disinterested. In Shaw’s play Pygmalion,
> Professor Higgins’ mother has learned not to let her famous NT son meet
> her high society friends:
> 
> M r s . H ig g in s : ...I’m serious, Henry. You offend all my friends: they stop
> coming whenever they meet you.
> H ig g in s : Nonsense! I know I have no small talk; but people don’t mind.
> M r s . H ig g in s : Oh! Don’t they? Small talk indeed! What about your large
> talk?...Henry: you are the life of the Royal Society [of Science]; but
> really you’re rather trying on more commonplace occasions.
> 
> Rationals prefer to appear unemotional when they communicate (and
> they can seem rather stiff), trying to minimize body-language, facial expression,
> and other non-verbal qualifiers as much as possible. But when
> they become animated their characteristic hand gestures express their need
> for precision and control. NTs will make one or both hands into claws or
> talons, as if to seize the idea they are discussing. They will also bend their
> fingers and grasp the space in front of them, turning and shaping their
> ideas in the air. They will use their fingers like a calculator, ticking off
> point after point, and they will take small objects at hand (salt and pepper
> shakers, pens and paper weights) and arrange them on a table or desk to
> help map out their ideas. But perhaps the most telling gesture of all is the
> apposition of the thumb against the finger tips, as if the NT is bringing an
> idea or an argument to the finest possible point and is savoring the precision.






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


I would like to continue on if the above excerpts does not clear your confusion about "personalities".

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


----------



## Stephen

Mark Novbett said:


> By the way, The key difference between Keirsey and Myers is that Myers put together words of the letters to describe each type. Keirsey has done so THROUGH 50 years of testing, OBSERVANCE. Keirsey is an INTP. Please, don't insult our drive. You can not analyze what I can.


So, because I disagree with Keirsey, and you think you're the same type, you're taking it personally and feeling insulted? And why can't I analyze what you can?


----------



## possiBri

Stephen said:


> Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.
> 
> That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.
> 
> ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.
> 
> INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.
> 
> INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.
> 
> ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.


I definitely agree with this.





Mark Novbett said:


> No, he was not short sighted nor are they descriptions of different personalities. If he was, so was Plato, Aristotle, Galen. And everything we know about personalities and character types comes from those three great ones.


Wow... how can you be so sure? Taking only temperament into consideration leaves out a LOT of other stuff that affects how a personality will manifest — which is, indeed, shortsighted. For example, the cognitive functions aren't even considered, so then you have some general misconceptions of types of the same temperament based on a lack of information. Additionally, the temperaments that Keirsy defined aren't particularly uniform, and it's kinda silly to try and compare an NT to an SP (for example), since you are comparing different aspects — so NTs with a P could likely relate quite a bit to an SP, whereas an NT with a J preference might not, which doesn't really leave room for legitimate comparisons/analysis.

/2¢


----------



## Mark Novbett

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


----------



## Mark Novbett

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

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

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

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

And this is you, MR. ENTP. 




> The Inventor [ENTP]
> Inventing is the functional side of engineering, that is, the building of prototypes of devices that work to make systems more efficient. It is so natural for ENTPs to practice devising ingenious gadgets and mechanisms that they start doing it even as young children. And these Inventors get such a kick out of it that they really never stop exercising their inventive talent, though in the workplace they will turn their technological ingenuity to many kinds of systems, social as well as physical and mechanical.
> 
> As a variant of Plato’s Rationals and Aristotle’s Dialecticals, the ENTPs are little different from the other NTs in most respects. Like all the Rationals, they are abstract in their communication and utilitarian in how they implement their goals. They choose to study science, are preoccupied with technology, and work well with systems. Their point of view is pragmatic, skeptical, relativistic, focused on spatial intersections and intervals of time. They base their self-image on being ingenious, autonomous, and resolute. They would if possible be calm, they trust reason, are hungry for achievement, seek knowledge, prize deference, and aspire to be wizards of science and technology. Intellectually they are prone to practice strategy far more than diplomacy, tactics, and especially logistics. Further, having a probing or option-minded nature they tend to prefer the Engineer’s informative role over the scheduling Coordinator’s directive role. And owing to their expressiveness and interest in the world at large they prefer the role variant of Inventor over Architect. To visualize ENTP intellectual development consider the following graph depicting the most probable profile of their strategic roles:
> 
> There aren’t many Inventors, say about two percent of the population. They are intensely curious and continuously probe for possibilities, especially concerning complex problems, and they find chaos theory intriguing. Such curiosity can be inspiring to others, who find themselves admiring the Inventor’s insatiable hunger for know-how. ENTPs are also the most reluctant of all the types to do things in a particular manner just because that is the way things have always been done. They characteristically have an eye out for a better way, always on the lookout for new projects, new activities, new procedures. Inventors are confident in the value of their approaches and display a charming capacity to ignore the standard, the traditional, and the authoritative. As a result of this innovative attitude, they often bring fresh, new approaches to their work and their lives.
> 
> Good at functional analysis, Inventors are keen judges of the pragmatics of both social and technological organization, and often become expert at improving relationships between means and ends. Where the INTP Architect
> sees design as an end in itself, the Inventor sees design as a means to an end, as a way of devising the instrument that works, the prototype that is replicable. To these outgoing Engineers, ideas are valuable when and only when they make possible actions and objects. “It can’t be done” is a challenge to an ENTP and elicits a reaction of “I can do it.” They are not, however, the movers of mountains as are the INTJ Masterminds. Rather, Inventors have faith in their ability to come up with solutions to problems, and they display an extraordinary talent for rising to the demands of even the most impossible situations. Superficially, they resemble ESTP Promoter Artisans with their talent for improvisation and expedient action. But the focus of the Inventors is on competency and a sense of achievement, rather than on the Promoter’s feeling of spontaneity and freedom of action.
> 
> Inventors have an entrepreneurial spirit and can cleverly make do with whatever or whoever is at hand, counting on their capability to solve problems as they arise, rather than carefully generating a detailed blueprint in advance. A rough draft is all they need to feel confident and ready to proceed into action. Because of this tendency to depend on their capability and inventiveness, ENTPs may, at times, neglect to prepare themselves adequately for a given task.
> 
> Even after repeated failures in situations where their capability has met with defeat, they will develop ways of avoiding such situations rather than resorting to more thorough preparation. ENTPs can succeed in a variety of occupations, as long as the job does not involve too much humdrum routine, at which point they become restless. They are usually outstanding teachers, continuously devising new and intriguing ways to get their students involved in learning. They make good leaders on innovative projects that test their ingenuity. And they are skilled at engineering human relationships and human systems, quickly grasping the politics of institutions and always aiming to understand the people within the system rather than to judge them. Indeed, they are non-directive in their handling of others, and will take charge of activities only when forced to by circumstance.
> 
> No matter what their occupation, however, Inventors are seldom conformists in the workplace. If their job becomes dull and repetitive, they tend to lose interest and fail to follow through—often to the discomfort of colleagues. To stave off routine, ENTPs will try to outwit the system and use the rules and regulations within the system to give themselves room to innovate. They may even work against the system just for the joy of holding the upper hand. Inventors have also been known to engage in brinkmanship with their superiors, placing their own careers in jeopardy and behaving as if unaware of the consequences. Thus they may create an unnecessary crisis on the job, just to give them an opportunity to come up with a solution—which, more often than not, they succeed in doing.
> 
> 
> Inventors often have a lively circle of friends and are interested in their ideas and activities. They are normally easy-going, seldom critical or nagging. Their good humor and curiosity tend to be contagious, and people seek out their company. ENTPs can be fascinating conversationalists, able to articulate their own complicated ideas and to follow the complex verbalization of others. They may, however, deliberately employ debate tactics to the disadvantage of their opponents, even when the opponents happen to be close associates and valued friends. Versatile and agile of mind, they respond quickly and adeptly to another’s shifting position. Often they are several jumps ahead. Indeed, ENTPs are the most able of all the types to maintain a one-up position with others, while to be taken-in or manipulated
> by another is humiliating to them, offending their pride in being masters of the art of one-upmanship.
> 
> Their home environment also tends to be full of life. They are gregarious, laugh easily and often, and are typically in good humor. Although usually dependable providers of economic necessities, life with ENTPs is at times an adventure, and they can unknowingly navigate the family into dangerous economic waters. Orderliness in the routines of daily living is not apt to inspire them, and they usually solve this problem by letting their mates pick up after them. Inventors like to spar verbally with their loved ones, and if their mates are not intellectually competitive they are likely to find such one-up/one-down transactions somewhat wearying. If the mate is competitive, however, the result might be delightful give-and-take—or, at times, marital conflict.
> 
> Inventors tend to have all sorts of hobbies and to be experts in unexpected areas, but they are not apt to share these hobbies with their mate or children in the sense of teaching them. In fact, Inventors may be very inconsistent in the attention they give to their offspring. Usually, it is feast or famine, wonderful warmth and affection when they are with their children, but also benign neglect when they are engrossed in their many outside interests. In particular, Inventors have little time for the everyday tasks of caring for and disciplining their children, and if possible will leave such domestic details to their mate.


----------



## Stephen

Mark Novbett said:


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


Was there something about my description of the INTP that you disagree with which you interpreted as _attempting_ to insult INTPs, then? And why can't I analyze what you can?

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


----------



## Stephen

Mark Novbett said:


> Cognitive functions come later. They act together, temperament also DEFINES cognitive functions (although not quite to my liking of precision) - but cognitive FUNCTIONS - ARE NOT OBSERVABLE - THUS NOT provable. That is the point.
> 
> What is however, provable is "temperaments". By Observing "what they do" and "what they say". You must be sure, before you set out to claim you are right. I understand I'm in the right path, not because I can give a general description as well as define what who will do at what situation but, how they will do so, almost every single time.
> 
> You can completely pre-define people through Keirsey's implications of their temperaments. And to note here, it is not perfect. It is however better than Myers.


But the problem then is a conflict with the more established Myers-Briggs system. I'm no fan of MBTI, I much prefer JCF. But if you're doing temperaments, you fall to the clear issue that people will just decide they're whichever temperament sounds the nicest. That will nearly always be NT, which is absurdly self-aggrandizing, while the SJ and SP temperaments stroll the line between insulting and condescending. Perhaps I should decide I'm the introverted sensation type in JCF, ISTJ in Myers-Briggs, and an NT, since that temperament describes me?


----------



## Stephen

Mark Novbett said:


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


"Not like I do?" _Nobody always considers all options._ See, this tells me that you're bothered by the idea that an ENTP might naturally be better at something than an INTP is. Did my description of the four types have to put the INTPs on top in every category?


----------



## Obsidian

Stephen said:


> But if you're doing temperaments, you fall to the clear issue that people will just decide they're whichever temperament sounds the nicest. That will nearly always be NT, which is absurdly self-aggrandizing, while the SJ and SP temperaments stroll the line between insulting and condescending.


This is just more of the inferiority complex -- the assumption that NT is the best.


----------



## Stephen

Obsidian said:


> This is just more of the inferiority complex -- the assumption that NT is the best.


I think the NT temperament has the most flattering description. Do you disagree?


----------



## Eleventeenth

Stephen said:


> Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.
> 
> That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.
> 
> ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.
> 
> INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.
> 
> INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, *but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.*
> 
> ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.


While these aren't "wrong", you haven't done anything but state the very obvious. Yes, INTJ's are Ni dom which is similar to INFJ (also Ni dom). And yes, they have subjective perception. Yes, INTP's are Ti dom. Yes, ENTP's are Ne dom. Yes, ENTJ's are Te dom and their objective, extroverted judgment dominates their thinking. And yes, it's very obvious that this makes them very much like ESTJ in some ways (also Te dom). This is all kind of the very base knowledge that everyone has. It would be like saying "ISTJ's are Si dom. They are most like the ISFJ, but they appear very similar to INTJ's as well. Their judging function is Te, but it's aux so it takes a backseat to Si. They tend to be organized." I mean, that's not really saying much. There's so much more "meat" than just that. It seems like a total reduction of people with Si/Te down to 2 or 3 obvious sentences. 

I'm not criticizing you at all - in fact, thanks for the contribution. I'm just saying that the descriptions you gave are simply 2-3 lines of selected (and therefore very truncated and incomplete) Jungian explanation. To read Jung's descriptions you will find all of these basics and a whole lot more. Maybe I'm missing your point of posting those...

I would like to know @Stephen ......if you don't mind, the part of your post that I bolded. I am doing a lot of reading and trying to fully grasp subjective versus objective and everything Jung and others have had to say on it. You seem to paint subjective perception in a negative light when you say "but.............[it] may be their undoing." You yourself are a subjective perceiver before anything else...why do you see this as a possible "undoing" for someone? I know what subjective perception is...I'm more interested in your reasoning as to why it would be an undoing for someone's personality? Do you not see any positives in subjective perception? It's not all negative...I can assure you of this.


----------



## Eleventeenth

Mark Novbett said:


> You can not analyze what I can.


I know what you're getting at here. INTP's know their analytical strengths, so you've probably learned through time and experience that others cannot analyze things the way you can (very in-depth analysis of everything). What you're getting wrong here, I think, is assuming that other types *can't* analyze like you. They can, they just don't have that preference in their mindset/cognition/psyche to the same degree that you do. You, being INTP, are driven to analyze everything in great depth. Ti/Ne will do that. But, that doesn't make INTP's "better" than other types and that's how you come off when you say stuff like that. Every person and every type has their own inherent strengths, and they also have some "blind spots" as I like to call them. If you're not sure what your own blind spots or weaknesses are...stop and think about it for a minute or two...it will come to you. You'll be reminded of them. So, yeah, you have your analytical strengths, as do most INTP's, but let's not assume that ISTJ's (and other types) don't have their strengths as well. Or let's not assume that INTP's don't have weaknesses.


----------



## Stephen

Eleventeenth said:


> I would like to know @_Stephen_ ......if you don't mind, the part of your post that I bolded. I am doing a lot of reading and trying to fully grasp subjective versus objective and everything Jung and others have had to say on it. You seem to paint subjective perception in a negative light when you say "but.............[it] may be their undoing." You yourself are a subjective perceiver before anything else...why do you see this as a possible "undoing" for someone? I know what subjective perception is...I'm more interested in your reasoning as to why it would be an undoing for someone's personality? Do you not see any positives in subjective perception? It's not all negative...I can assure you of this.


Well, I see it as a _possible_ undoing in certain circumstances, not necessarily a likely or certain one. I know it's something that I struggle with a bit at times, just as you said, I am also dominant in a subjective perceiving function. What I mean by this is that since we are detached from the reality of the object, and much more prone to instead perceive its impressions, we can have difficulty really accessing what we see consistently. It's the natural way, so it's not inherently bad, I just think it's better for some things than others.

I was just having a conversation about this yesterday, in fact, about how Si may well describe, among other things of course, an obstacle to the production of realistic art. I have difficulty seeing objects in a way that makes it easy for me to reproduce them accurately, yet I find myself very dissatisfied with my attempts at producing abstract art. Certainly this could improve with practice, but I think a detachment from the object makes the idea more difficult. Jung's description of a Si dom speaks of the detachment growing with increasing neurosis, so the issue is less with those of us who pretend we're more together than that.

We're talking about Ni though, and I'm drifting afield. My observation of Ni users (obviously from the outside, so you could probably help me refine this understanding a bit) is that they're very focused on an internally modeled system of connections of these impressions. I see that as something that can lead to a bit of a rabbit hole mentality, where the Ni user might find themselves somewhat trapped in a descent through these connections, to the point of distraction. It's something I've observed as well, but without a broad range of Ni users in a controlled situation, I prefer not to cite anecdotes.

Again, I'm handling Ni from an outside perspective, so I'm even more open to correction than I normally would be.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Why can't you analyze what I can. The fundamentals with which you think, and the way you behave - shows that. It is perhaps sounding as arrogance. However, please be assured, I'm not at the least trying to be arrogant. You are my opposite, and there really is no better way of putting those words together, for me.

I can not ever, completely fathom the way you feel, the way you think, the way you rationalize. Vice versa, you can not either. It goes against our very nature. 

What is however is possible, is defining you and me both - by observance. Not through distinct domination of functions. There isn't a all inclusive guide line or method of determining functions nor are they always correct ( the descriptions you can find). And why are they not correct? because they do not take the "common factors per category" into consideration.

In your understanding of the rules, the guidelines, the concrete - you can not but help organize and determine through experience. Here, let's be clear again ( im too obscure sometimes, ok most of the times >_>) - experience is not the same thing as observance. To observe like an INTP, you have to be able to categorize people. To be able - to be neutral in crossing out factors by "comparison". 

An example of this trait of your from this thread alone, where you said:




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


I'm not like ISTP, NOT at the Ti usage of our brains. We are like idealists, due to the abstract way of thoughts - BUT NOT our MEANS of ACHIEVING. Idealists are ALOOF in that manner.
We do not do subjective judgement. We do, objective judgement - the big picture.
Again, the functions are not acting differently than an ENTP. The entire mixture makes our ways different. Our analysis power comes from observance - comes from Thinking + Perceiving. And here again, "Judging" is not separate from perceiving.

We are not just called "thinkers sometimes" We are thinkers. We think about the complexity of let's say the thought of the moment even during bowel movements. We are not thinking about eating while eating, we are thinking - something else. And this something else can be relevant to do what I'm doing (it usually is not), or completely off like living in another planet. A completely abstract concept for most Concrete types.

No type is smarter. The idea of INTPs being smarter comes from us being DEDICATED in our practice of our interested skills. With interest, we can solve anything. We are just more interested in all sorts of abstract IDEAS more than the Concrete types - thus makes us SEEM more smart. It doesn't make us more correct either. However, due to our invested interest, we can not stop thinking. Can not stop Analyzing. And we don't tax that thought. We let it flow, not shove into one direction or another.

I'm also seeing that my knack for abstract thoughts is making it very difficult to explain the difference between concrete and abstract, to you - a concrete type.


Thus, I'll once again, point below.
For future reference, I have uploaded a few of the chapters (mainly the category chapters) to scribd for people interested in leisurely reading.



Code:


scribd.com/doc/87641651/Please-Understand-Me-II-The-Guardians
scribd.com/doc/87641626/Please-Understand-Me-II-The-Artisans
scribd.com/doc/87641694/Please-Understand-Me-II-The-Idealists
scribd.com/doc/87640937/Please-Understand-Me-II-The-Rationals

Take a look, you may find out things you ignored before. The website of Keirsey says little to unpaid testers.


----------



## Eleventeenth

Stephen said:


> Well, I see it as a _possible_ undoing in certain circumstances, not necessarily a likely or certain one. I know it's something that I struggle with a bit at times, just as you said, I am also dominant in a subjective perceiving function. What I mean by this is that since we are detached from the reality of the object, and much more prone to instead perceive its impressions, we can have difficulty really accessing what we see consistently. It's the natural way, so it's not inherently bad, I just think it's better for some things than others.
> 
> I was just having a conversation about this yesterday, in fact, about how Si may well describe, among other things of course, an obstacle to the production of realistic art. I have difficulty seeing objects in a way that makes it easy for me to reproduce them accurately, yet I find myself very dissatisfied with my attempts at producing abstract art. Certainly this could improve with practice, but I think a detachment from the object makes the idea more difficult. Jung's description of a Si dom speaks of the detachment growing with increasing neurosis, so the issue is less with those of us who pretend we're more together than that.
> 
> We're talking about Ni though, and I'm drifting afield. My observation of Ni users (obviously from the outside, so you could probably help me refine this understanding a bit) is that they're very focused on an internally modeled system of connections of these impressions. I see that as something that can lead to a bit of a rabbit hole mentality, where the Ni user might find themselves somewhat trapped in a descent through these connections, to the point of distraction. It's something I've observed as well, but without a broad range of Ni users in a controlled situation, I prefer not to cite anecdotes.
> 
> Again, I'm handling Ni from an outside perspective, so I'm even more open to correction than I normally would be.


Thanks. What you're talking about here (the "rabbit hole" effect of Ni, as you describe it) is why we see some Ni users becoming conspiracy theorists and becoming so entrenched in their subjective perceptions that they can't be convinced that they're wrong or that there is any other way. This can happen, I believe, if they're extremely unbalanced, or if they're not getting enough Te/Fe time, or time in the extroverted world. But, that's another tangent...because every type has their own way that they can sort of "go astray" or "fall off the deep end" if they aren't balanced. Ni'ers aren't the only ones who can become "whacky". And my intent is not to pick on Ni types. 

I will say that subjective functions allow for uniqueness. If we were all objective, then everything would pretty much stay the same and be status quo. There would be no new "opinions", no new "impressions", perhaps no unique artwork. Without subjective functions, there would be a lot less uniqueness in the world. The weakness of being subjective is that it may not line up with reality and it can, at times, be "selfish" (focusing on the self). But, it also says, "Hey, I have a completely new way of looking at things." My perceptions (or judgments, depending on your type) may be subjective, but they are mine, they are unique to me." 

Be assured that subjective functions are needed in this world just as much as objective functions.


----------



## Obsidian

Stephen said:


> I think the NT temperament has the most flattering description. Do you disagree?


Maybe you're an NT.

But really, I feel like the descriptions are often quite useless, because they include only positives and omit the negatives.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Ok, I have found a diagram to explain the relationship between Concrete and Abstract.

Abstract vs Concrete:
Figurative vs Literal
Symboolic vs Signal
Categorical vs Elemental
Analogic vs Indicative
Fictional vs factual
Schematic vs Detailed
Theoretical vs Empirical
General vs Specific


Now, put that into a Venn diagram with the words abstract/Concrete in the middle, let each circle have ap iece of the middle circle. This is how abstract vs Concrete relation works.

Again, by definition, complete OPPOSITES.


----------



## Eleventeenth

Mark Novbett said:


> Ok, I have found a diagram to explain the relationship between Concrete and Abstract.
> 
> Abstract vs Concrete:
> Figurative vs Literal
> Symboolic vs Signal
> Categorical vs Elemental
> Analogic vs Indicative
> Fictional vs factual
> Schematic vs Detailed
> Theoretical vs Empirical
> General vs Specific
> 
> 
> Now, put that into a Venn diagram with the words abstract/Concrete in the middle, let each circle have ap iece of the middle circle. This is how abstract vs Concrete relation works.
> 
> Again, by definition, complete OPPOSITES.


I refuse to agree with you unless you physically draw it and put it into a Venn diagram and post it.


----------



## Mark Novbett

It seems flattering due to our way of mind. But really, the description of the Guardians should be most flattering to you.

if someone tells me "i'm sentimental enough" for example - I take that as an INSULT. Now, if the same person told me, "I'm too abstract" - I take that as a compliment.

Perhaps, NTs are what people wish to be but you can not simply morph your mind to another type. That is IMPOSSIBLE - that is INEFFECTIVE, you can not become a copy of me nor can I be of you. You can understand, somewhat. But even in that understanding, you will USE your PREDISPOSED Temperaments/PREJUDICES. As would I. 

Our way of lives, our way of mind, our way of acts, make it harder for us to achieve WHAT we WANT to ACHIEVE. Thus, naturally - WE from a VERY early AGE - figure out DIRECTION, ALTERNATIVE, MANIPULATION or ANALYSIS.

Each NT - the 4 types - use all of THOSE. Some more of one, some less of one. THAT is the difference between NTs. 

Again, calculate AFTER you exclude ALL common DENOMINATORS.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Eleventeenth said:


> I refuse to agree with you unless you physically draw it and put it into a Venn diagram and post it.


I will describe this in detail once I can post images - stay tuned.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Eleventeenth said:


> Thanks. What you're talking about here (the "rabbit hole" effect of Ni, as you describe it) is why we see some Ni users becoming conspiracy theorists and becoming so entrenched in their subjective perceptions that they can't be convinced that they're wrong or that there is any other way. This can happen, I believe, if they're extremely unbalanced, or if they're not getting enough Te/Fe time, or time in the extroverted world. But, that's another tangent...because every type has their own way that they can sort of "go astray" or "fall off the deep end" if they aren't balanced. Ni'ers aren't the only ones who can become "whacky". And my intent is not to pick on Ni types.
> 
> I will say that subjective functions allow for uniqueness. If we were all objective, then everything would pretty much stay the same and be status quo. There would be no new "opinions", no new "impressions", perhaps no unique artwork. Without subjective functions, there would be a lot less uniqueness in the world. The weakness of being subjective is that it may not line up with reality and it can, at times, be "selfish" (focusing on the self). But, it also says, "Hey, I have a completely new way of looking at things." My perceptions (or judgments, depending on your type) may be subjective, but they are mine, they are unique to me."
> 
> Be assured that subjective functions are needed in this world just as much as objective functions.


Here again, after a little analysis - I can point out these temperaments at work here in this person's thoughts.

1. Knack for avoiding redundancy. - INTP
2. The Other side - neutrality - INTP
3. The ability to calculate the rabbit hole theory (he's right) - Analysis (Perceiving, Judging, Thinking) at work.

Thank you.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Here goes a very badly drawn Venn diagram in paint.










What does this mean?

NTs all share the middle part.

The ENTJ: 
-Applies his to command, direct, mobilize, co-ordinate

The INTJ:
-Applies his to plan thus act for "what if, may be, can be, possibilities, effectiveness"

The ENTP:
-Applies his to Improvise, invent, manipulate.

The INTP:
-Applies his to Think - thus analyzing.


Just because we share the same common factors DOES NOT make us the same in regards to the solution. Why not? The other NON COMMON factors. You mix both the common and the non common - unique to you, you got your personality type.


I'll let Keirsey explain.



> The Basic Dimensions of Personality
> 
> The characteristics of the four temperaments are consistent
> over time - and it is no accident, but seems to reflect a fundamental pattern in the
> warp and woof of the fabric of human nature. Indeed, I would argue that
> the four types are most likely derived from the interweaving of the two
> most basic human actions, how we communicate with each other, and how
> we use tools to accomplish our goals. Clearly, what sets human beings
> apart from the other animals are two advantages we have over them—words
> and tools. And what sets us apart from each other is the way we use words
> and tools. The great majority of us are predominantly concrete in our word
> usage, the rest predominantly abstract. And about half of us are utilitarian
> in our choice and use of tools, the other half cooperative.
> 
> *Abstract versus Concrete Word Usage*
> In considering human differences some investigators have focused on
> differences in linguistic orientation, others on differences in cognitive
> orientation; both, however, are concerned with the human imperative that
> bids us locate ourselves in our social context as we take action. On the
> linguistic side Kurt Goldstein and Ernst Cassirer thought of humans as
> talking animals. In his Abstract and Concrete Behavior, Goldstein had
> some people talking more abstractly than concretely and others talking
> more concretely than abstractly. Similarly, in his Essay on Man Cassirer
> had some talking more analogically than indicatively, others talking more
> indicatively than analogically. In other words, some people are prone to
> send symbol messages, others to send signal messages—signals pointing
> to something present to the eye, symbols bringing to mind something
> absent from view.
> 
> As for cognition, Myers in The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator had some
> of us oriented by intuition or introspection, the rest by sensory perception
> or observation. Similarly David Riesman, in Individualism Reconsidered,
> spoke of “inner-directed” and “outer-directed” orientations. And Eric
> Adickes, in his Character and Worldview, saw some as “heteronomous”
> or other-directed in orientation, and others as “autonomous” or self-directed
> in orientation.
> 
> Thus our thoughts and the words that reflect them keep us oriented to
> reality by telling us who we and our companions are, and what we and
> they are to do. Thoughts of course are not observable, but words are, so
> some inspection of the kinds of words we choose may be useful.
> Abstract words can be used in slightly different but related ways—
> analogical, categorical, fictional, figurative, general, schematic, symbolic,
> and theoretical. Likewise, concrete words can be used in slightly different
> but related ways—detailed, factual, elemental, empirical, indicative, literal,
> signal, and specific. To illustrate the relationships between these terms I
> have linked them together with overlapping Venn diagrams, as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The diagram suggests that an analogy, for example, is both fictional
> and figurative, a figure of speech both symbolic and analogic, a symbol
> both figurative and categorical, and so on, all different forms of abstract
> speech. Likewise, an indicative expression is both factual and literal, a
> factual expression both indicative and detailed, a detail both factual and
> empirical, and so on, all concrete in some manner. Thus both words,
> ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete,’ have many, but related, uses, and we are wise to
> keep this in mind as we compare and contrast those who are more prone to
> abstract speech with those more prone to concrete speech.
> 
> *Cooperative versus Utilitarian Tool Usage*
> Human beings are far more than word-using animals. Indeed the proliferation
> of our words came only when there was a proliferation of our
> tools. As tools differentiated there was a reciprocal differentiation of words,
> neither getting ahead or falling behind the other.
> Nearly everything we do to implement our goals requires several kinds
> of tools used both simultaneously and successively. No matter where we
> look we see tools in every direction, inside or outside our homes and
> throughout our communities. The house itself is an enormously complex
> tool. Everything in it is a tool—chairs, tables, books, computer, television,
> phone, radio, pictures, lamps, rugs, boxes, on and on and on. Our vehicles
> are tools as are our roads and bridges and walkways and even our clothes.
> 
> Civilization itself is created and maintained by tools. We distanced ourselves
> from the other animals and made ourselves supreme among them by fashioning
> a fantastic array of tools. Indeed, it is this array of tools that enables
> us to pursue goals not dreamed of in centuries past.
> 
> No matter what our goals, however, we do not necessarily choose the
> same tools to reach them. And this is where our character takes a hand.
> Some of us prefer to use tools that have been approved by our membership
> groups. Others will use the best tools for the job whether or not they have
> been approved. Let us think of the former as cooperative in going after
> what they want, and the latter as utilitarian in their pursuit of goals.
> To put it simply, the Cooperators try to get where they want to go by
> getting along with others, that is, by being law-abiding and accommodating
> with those around them, so that they are in full accord with the agreed-upon
> rules and mores of the social groups they belong to. In contrast, the Utilitarians
> tend to go after what they want in the most effective ways possible,
> and they choose tools that promise success with minimum cost and effort—
> whether or not they observe the social rules.
> 
> Not, mind you, that the habitually cooperative persons don’t care about
> useful and effective tools. Certainly they do, but they consider the effectiveness
> of tools as secondary to whether they should be used, or how
> they will be regarded by others—in other words, whether they are socially
> acceptable, or morally correct. In the same way, it is not that the habitually
> utilitarian persons refuse to cooperate with their social groups, but they see
> pleasing others and observing rules as secondary considerations, coming
> only after they have determined how well their chosen tools will work in
> accomplishing their ends. It’s a matter of priorities. Most of us learn to get
> along with others most of the time, and most of us opt for effective action,
> but our first instinct is to pursue our goals according to our habit of
> cooperating or utilizing.
> 
> By intersecting the rows and columns in a four-cell matrix (see below),
> the four types of character can be clearly seen in relation to each other:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPs are utilitarian like NTs and concrete like SJs, and are not
> like NFs in either way. NFs, on the other hand, are cooperative like SJs
> and abstract like NTs, and again, unlike SPs in either way. So each temperament
> has two complementary types and one opposite, when it comes to
> the way they communicate their messages and the way they implement
> their goals.
> 
> 
> Observing people’s uses of words and tools gives us a convenient and
> remarkably accurate way of determining their temperament. Thus, having
> first noticed that a person is, say, habitually concrete in speech, and then
> noting that he or she is habitually cooperative in getting things done, we
> have determined the person we watch to be Plato’s Guardian, Aristotle’s
> Proprietary, and Myers’s SJ. And so it goes with typewatching, our observations
> of concrete or abstract word usage and cooperative or utilitarian
> tool usage enabling us to determine whether we are watching or interacting
> with an SP Artisan, an SJ Guardian, an NF Idealist, or an NT Rational.
> These two dimensions of personality are the very foundation of my
> type definitions, and will be referred to throughout this book.


I don't find my own words any more necessary after the above quote.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Stephen said:


> But if you're doing temperaments, you fall to the clear issue that people will just decide they're whichever temperament sounds the nicest....


No, there IS a temperament sorter, test. I will post this test, here. Just have to be honest in answering. Dishonest answers equals to fooling oneself.

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

The Keirsey Temperament Sorter"

Like, for example - my test result.


----------



## Mark Novbett

I strongly came to believe that the first step to understanding the differences between each type under each category and co-relation or opposites of each type - you have to completely LET GO of your understanding of Cognitive functions. Shove it aside, push it to the backs. 


To understand a person - you observe their actions. We can not observe another's mind - let alone ours for most people.


----------



## Strat19

Mark Novbett said:


> No, he was not short sighted nor are they descriptions of different personalities. If he was, so was Plato, Aristotle, Galen.


And you consider that a valid argument?



> The key difference between Keirsey and Myers is that Myers put together words of the letters to describe each type. Keirsey has done so THROUGH 50 years of testing, OBSERVANCE. Keirsey is an INTP. Please, don't insult our drive. You can not analyze what I can.


*facepalm*

Now regarding the temperaments, I agree with @_Stephen_. NTPs have a lot more in common with NFPs than with NTJs.


----------



## Mark Novbett

@Strat19: Did you actually look? At the 2 diagrams above?



> By intersecting the rows and columns in a four-cell matrix (see below),
> the four types of character can be clearly seen in relation to each other:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SPs are utilitarian like NTs and concrete like SJs, and are not
> like NFs in either way. NFs, on the other hand, are cooperative like SJs
> and abstract like NTs, and again, unlike SPs in either way. So each temperament
> has two complementary types and one opposite, when it comes to
> the way they communicate their messages and the way they implement
> their goals.



Did you read, this? Why We are ALIKE NFs? Obviously you didn't.


----------



## Mark Novbett

Strat19 said:


> And you consider that a valid argument?
> 
> 
> 
> *facepalm*
> 
> Now regarding the temperaments, I agree with @_Stephen_. NTPs have a lot more in common with NFPs than with NTJs.


Let's put this post of mine to the test. Test of being an NT through their way of communication and implementation of goals.

1. I want you to read, so, I belittle your argument simply by saying you did not read. Intended intention of triggering your self-defense in making you READ.
2. The entire concept of quoting another person while not directly/concretely saying you are WRONG but STILL managing to PROVE or IMPLY you are WRONG.
3. The entire process of that post, is BOTH CONCRETE as WELL as ABSTRACT.

NTs are UTILITARIAN as well as CO-OPERATIVE in TOOL usage. The TOOL here is THE QUOTE above as well as YOUR OWN POST.
NTs are ABSTRACT CO-OPERATIVE as well as ABSTRACT UTILITARIAN in WORD usage, i'm being co-operative WITH YOU. But abstractly, NOT CONCRETELY (as in agreeing with you 1st) = OPPOSITE of SJ, alike NF, ALIKE SP.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer

Stephen said:


> Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.
> 
> That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.
> 
> ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.
> 
> INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.
> 
> INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.
> 
> ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.


I know that it's been pointed out that these are simply elementary reductions of the four NT types, but I take issue with you saying that x NT type is functionally the most like y other type that shares the same dominant and inferior functions. That's absolutely not true. You're forgetting that there are two functions in the middle that are completely different and in a separate order. Those functions make a huge difference. Yes, on the surface, two types with the same dominant function may appear similar, but that surface is about as thin as a layer of ice having been exposed to a couple of hours of below-freezing air. The other 3 functions have an immense amount of influence in the development of an individual. ENTPs and ENFPs are very different in manifestation. the difference between Ti/Fi and Fe/Te are _huge_, and those functions matter greatly. Same can be said about INTPs and ISTPs, INTJs and INFJs, and ENTJs and ESTJs.

Functionally, ENTPs are most like INTPs and vice versa. Likewise, ENTJs are most like INTJs. Why? The functions are exactly the same with a similar order. No disrespect, but you criticized Kiersey (there are problems with his work, no doubt), yet offered flawed and inadequate descriptions as a substitute.


----------



## asewland

Stephen said:


> Keirsey was shortsighted in his grouping of these types together. They are very different personalities from each other with very different dominant functions. It shows in the general descriptions of the temperament in the op, pasted from the official website. Those could apply to any type to some extent, and contrary to what he implies, not every individual who identifies with an xNTx type has these traits.
> 
> That said, here are the actual differences between these four types.
> 
> ENTP is Ne dom. They are the most like ENFP. Ne brings a focus on the possibilities present in the object. It's a present, theoretical perception. With Ti aux, it makes the ENTP the most natural of these four at capturing implied subtext, whether or not it's real, and interpreting it based on an internal logical evaluation system.
> 
> INTP is Ti dom. They are the most like ISTP. Ti brings these jungian rationals a focus on rapid subjective judgment. Their perceiving function is still Ne, but it takes a back seat to their judgment when compared to ENTPs. INTPs are called thinkers sometimes, and while Ti dominance doesn't make them smarter or more likely to be correct than any other type, it makes them one of the more naturally thoughtful.
> 
> INTJ is Ni dominant. These are functionally the most like INFJs, but outwardly largely indistinguishable from ISTJs due to the similarity of the dominant and aux functions. Ni doms have a subjective perception, so are naturally detached from the object, and from reality. I personally consider INTJs the most orderly and practical of these four types, but due to the unpredictable and subjective nature of Ni, their perception may be their undoing.
> 
> ENTJ is Te dominant, so is the most like ESTJ. Te is orderly, methodical, objective, and matter of fact. Of course, that doesn't make it right. These would be most forceful and determined of the nt types. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to personal taste. An ENTJ's judgment dominates their perception, which makes them probably the most effective at accomplishing things of these four types.


 I agree and disagree with you. I agree that he was shortsighted in the fact that he didn't address cognitive functions. I disagree that the four NTs types are very different from each other. What if the MBTI wasn't the only factor that Keirsey used in his theory? I think he may have used some observation and anecdotal evidence in creating his theory.


----------



## Obsidian

Mark Novbett said:


> No, there IS a temperament sorter, test. I will post this test, here. Just have to be honest in answering. Dishonest answers equals to fooling oneself.


According to that one, I'm ENTP


----------



## Stephen

Eleventeenth said:


> Thanks. What you're talking about here (the "rabbit hole" effect of Ni, as you describe it) is why we see some Ni users becoming conspiracy theorists and becoming so entrenched in their subjective perceptions that they can't be convinced that they're wrong or that there is any other way. This can happen, I believe, if they're extremely unbalanced, or if they're not getting enough Te/Fe time, or time in the extroverted world. But, that's another tangent...because every type has their own way that they can sort of "go astray" or "fall off the deep end" if they aren't balanced. Ni'ers aren't the only ones who can become "whacky". And my intent is not to pick on Ni types.
> 
> I will say that subjective functions allow for uniqueness. If we were all objective, then everything would pretty much stay the same and be status quo. There would be no new "opinions", no new "impressions", perhaps no unique artwork. Without subjective functions, there would be a lot less uniqueness in the world. The weakness of being subjective is that it may not line up with reality and it can, at times, be "selfish" (focusing on the self). But, it also says, "Hey, I have a completely new way of looking at things." My perceptions (or judgments, depending on your type) may be subjective, but they are mine, they are unique to me."
> 
> Be assured that subjective functions are needed in this world just as much as objective functions.


I agree completely. And I think the description you gave of Ni users getting wrapped up in their perceptions also applies to Si users just as much. And to clarify, I don't think any type is more objective, because objective functions pair with subjective. As objective as my judgment is, my perception is subjective. Jung said it very well in his description of Se doms, when clarifying that their objective perception is changed by their subjective judgment.

I really like your posts, by the way. I really relate to your presentation of your thoughts.


----------



## possiBri

Mark Novbett said:


> No, there IS a temperament sorter, test. I will post this test, here. Just have to be honest in answering. Dishonest answers equals to fooling oneself.
> 
> There are 70 questions as well as the rules of calculating the answers - pretty simple actually. Scribd should let you download it.
> 
> The Keirsey Temperament Sorter"


Took this test just now, scored INTX. Now, first off, I think that this sort of test is too black and white. Any time I take a personality test that only offers concrete options instead of a sliding scale, I find myself frustrated by not having the option to choose both/neutral. I think this will skew results. Additionally, I test as INTP a lot because *socially* introverted traits seem to often be confused for *personality* introversion, which are two different things entirely. Granted, I do feel XNTP most days, but either way, my focus is on the external world for the most part. It's like I'm a foraging ant: I go out into the world and collect data and then bring it back to my home for further analysis.

Anyway, you have failed to convince me, and I still maintain that Keirsy — while definitely providing some interesting "general" data/information — was a bit off the mark with his temperament sorting. It just seems so silly to have two temperaments that have both a judging and a perceiving function tied to it, and then for sensors to have much vaguer pairings.

Oh, also, I agree with @Strat19 — and you might want to do more than just repost a diagram. I feel like you haven't really made a single argument, you've just reposted what Keirsy wrote, which is relevant, but not really making a case for your position at all...


----------



## MegaTuxRacer

Mark Novbett said:


> No, there IS a temperament sorter, test. I will post this test, here. Just have to be honest in answering. Dishonest answers equals to fooling oneself.
> 
> There are 70 questions as well as the rules of calculating the answers - pretty simple actually. Scribd should let you download it.
> 
> The Keirsey Temperament Sorter"
> 
> Like, for example - my test result.


Honestly, you read much more like an ENTP than an INTP. The Keirsey method of typing is largely flawed since I would normally score INTP or INTJ when I am most definitely an ENTP. You mentioned earlier that type determines cognitive functions. That isn't true. Since Jung's work is the genesis for Meyers' and Briggs' work and Keirsey's work is based off of Meyers' and Briggs', Jung's work precludes all of this. Cognitive functions and order determine type. That's the basis for Meyers-Briggs which is the basis for Keirsey's work. E/I, S/N, T/F, and J/P don't really have anything to do with it except as labels to organize the various ways cognitive functions can be ordered.


----------



## Mark Novbett

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Honestly, you read much more like an ENTP than an INTP. The Keirsey method of typing is largely flawed since I would normally score INTP or INTJ when I am most definitely an ENTP. You mentioned earlier that type determines cognitive functions. That isn't true. Since Jung's work is the genesis for Meyers' and Briggs' work and Keirsey's work is based off of Meyers' and Briggs', Jung's work precludes all of this. Cognitive functions and order determine type. That's the basis for Meyers-Briggs which is the basis for Keirsey's work. E/I, S/N, T/F, and J/P don't really have anything to do with it except as labels to organize the various ways cognitive functions can be ordered.


I score INTP in every test. Keirsey or not. My ability to act like an ENTP in terms of social atmosphere comes from my best friend's influence in my life. I understand that as well. I understand very well how ENTPs manipulate and communicate. It is not hard to replicate or innovate. I'm the chameleon, remember. My pure INTPness turns off everybody.

What keirsey tests is how we act and what we say. He didn't touch cognitive functions perhaps because he wanted to distinguish the 2 methods of understanding characters (regarding your other post).

I have tried myself to understand Jung thus later version of Myers' cognitive function analysis and how we are supposed to act as given by their descriptions. But there's always anomalies as they say. And these anomalies get more and more common and not really anomalies as you observe or read about different people's lives. What I do credit Keirsey with is the idea of PROVING who you are through "how you act" and "what you say". Cognitive functions are still hypothetical, can not be observed. And still a building theory.

Keirsey's work is not simply based on Myers. He compiled from Plato -> Myers. I'm over simplifying what that actually means. his book quite describes the meaning and significance of a 2 millennium worth of idea. Keirsey calls Jung's work hypothetical and incomplete and targets Myers' for spinning Jung's work - but at the same time, he credits Myers for reviving personology and making it well known. The basis for Myers' is Jung's description of each functions. She took the first letter and put the descriptions together to describe each type - faulty. Her AIM was determining the type. Not explanation on the type or behavior of the type. Keirsey's aim was to explain. I personally do not believe in the 4 functions myth. Human beings are complex creatures - this simplification will just not do and indeed does not do. We are not machines.

Perhaps, you need other views on cognitive functions to understand Temperament as the result of cognitive function usage.

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/93066-new-cognitive-functions-relation-analysis.html

Is a new theory of mine. Have fun picking out that one =p


----------



## possiBri

Mark Novbett said:


> I personally do not believe in the 4 functions myth. Human beings are complex creatures - this simplification will just not do and indeed does not do. We are not machines.


But you believe we each fall into one of 4 temperaments? How is Keirsy's method more complex? If anything it is oversimplifying things.


----------



## Mark Novbett

possiBri said:


> But you believe we each fall into one of 4 temperaments? How is Keirsy's method more complex? If anything it is oversimplifying things.


Because it comes from observance. And you can apply all of his explanations to people and that checks out. I did test on a few "subjects". Albeit unknown to them >_> Think they would hate me if they knew I look at them as self-developing Guinea pigs in my head.

And 4 temperaments = 16 characters. It's categorizing. Everything we do is categorizing stuff. Structuring. What's wrong with categorizing?

Let me give you an example of a test. How to catch an ENTP unprepared to get things done that they'd normally not do? Surprise them by not acting, by thinking more about it than them (don't let em see it coming), don't let em even suspect what you are trying to do is intentional. Works every single time!! XD

SJs? Be nice, don't talk abstract. Complement.

What you can learn from Temperaments, is the art of manipulation. And an INTP manipulation is objective manipulation that does not harm the one being manipulated. Win-win!

I can not tell you how to manipulate an INTP. TBH, typical ones get influenced by insults that belittle their intelligence. It works for non typical ones as well - but with practice we can rule that out. We can actually ignore things as if it doesn't exist. You cannot manipulate a fully aware INTP.


----------

