# SPs: What do you think of NTs?



## ster

I find that SPs and NTs have a certain level of respect for each other... Both SPs and NTs have good authenticity radars and are down-to-earth. Both enjoy simple. They both like exploring what is different and unconventional. NTs appreciate the SPs adaptable nature, laidbackness, altruism. SPs are fascinated with NT minds and off-beat-ness. I think both types are explorers, and when we come together, we mesh our two different types of exploration together without much competition or power struggle, playing off each other. They bring different tools to the table of perspective without getting personal about things, and neither desire holding grudges. (except i question whether this is also true for ENTJs...don't think i've observed one closely enough).


----------



## srsly

UM.

I know like, one of each?

INTP- The two I know are two of my best friends and are crazy funny.
INTJ- Never leaves his room so how would I know? He thinks I'm annoying though, I know that.
ENTJ- Is super funny and I enjoy her company.
ENTP: Don't know if I have ACTUALLY ever met one.
My sister is a suspected, super unhealthy, ENTP.

I like this guy, though.... a lot.


----------



## Capsicum

ENTJs are my favourite type of NT; they fight hard, but know when to quit and don't take things personally... as opposed to the ENTPs I know, who seem to be the opposite of that. INTJs can be fun but are usually distant, and I'm basically neutral on INTPs.


----------



## Istbkleta

Capsicum said:


> ENTJs are my favourite type of NT; they fight hard, but know when to quit and don't take things personally... as opposed to the ENTPs I know, who seem to be the opposite of that.


Can you elaborate and give specific examples?


----------



## Capsicum

Istbkleta said:


> Can you elaborate and give specific examples?


From a few ENTPs I know (having seen a couple test ENTP on FB, or test Te dominant, and then thinking of others I know who behave in a similar manner, so very amateur I'll admit), the Te dominant types seem to be tough bastards, because that's how they get things done. It's nothing personal, as a rule, if they run over you in the process... and I like that. Now take the guy in the vid a few posts above, he's EXACTLY like those I know who I suspect to be ENTP, and they only ever seem interested in themselves, they want attention, and aren't above making fools of themselves to distract others; I seriously can't see that guy caring about anyone but himself, he does have a very cocky, smartarse attitude.

Now I'm 22yo, so it's perfectly possible that it's mainly because I'm hanging around with an immature bunch... but that's usually what I see from ENTPs :mellow: , for every positive experience I've had with an ENTP I've had a few which left me thinking, "man, what an... *ahem* ."


----------



## Istbkleta

Capsicum said:


> From a few ENTPs I know (having seen a couple test ENTP on FB, or test Te dominant, and then thinking of others I know who behave in a similar manner, so very amateur I'll admit), the Te dominant types seem to be tough bastards, because that's how they get things done. It's nothing personal, as a rule, if they run over you in the process... and I like that. Now take the guy in the vid a few posts above, he's EXACTLY like those I know who I suspect to be ENTP, and they only ever seem interested in themselves, they want attention, and aren't above making fools of themselves to distract others; I seriously can't see that guy caring about anyone but himself, he does have a very cocky, smartarse attitude.
> 
> Now I'm 22yo, so it's perfectly possible that it's mainly because I'm hanging around with an immature bunch... but that's usually what I see from ENTPs :mellow: , for every positive experience I've had with an ENTP I've had a few which left me thinking, "man, what an... *ahem* ."


So:

1. Not caring about other people but Te doms dont care too so ...? I don't get it.

2. Narcissistic? 

3. Attention whores - will do dumb stuff to attract attention?

4. "Cocky, smartarse attitude."

To me it looks like he is putting on a show to make people laugh. I don't really see that as negative. What am I missing?


----------



## Capsicum

Istbkleta said:


> So:
> 
> 1. Not caring about other people but Te doms dont care too so ...? I don't get it.
> 
> 2. Narcissistic?
> 
> 3. Attention whores - will do dumb stuff to attract attention?
> 
> 4. "Cocky, smartarse attitude."
> 
> To me it looks like he is putting on a show to make people laugh. I don't really see that as negative. What am I missing?


1) A Te dom wants to get something done, and doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not anyone else agrees. Can be good or bad, depending on the situation.

2) I never said narcissistic.

3) The seem to do it more than most other types, it may be an ExxP thing.

4) Well, he just bored me. If he was putting on a show, it was a cocky, smartarse show imho.


----------



## lirulin

Cruciferae said:


> NT's are cool. I've only met perhaps one INTP and I don't think I've met an ENTP but the ENTJ's I know are pretty awesome and every INTJ I've met has been really fun and generally adorable. Is adorable a strange way to describe INTJs? Because they are. I'm rather fond of the INTJ's I've known.


It's not _that_ strange. I consider Daleks adorable. Apparently _that _is strange. But they _are._


----------



## pericles

ENTJs : Mutual respect. I admire them.
ENTPs : Get along really well.
INTJs : 0 experience
INTPs : Bring very valuable knowledge/insights to the table. (as long as said knowledge is about real-world thing such as politics, finances, society, psychology instead of something too abstract/ not useful/ not applicable)


----------



## Drewbie

lirulin said:


> It's not _that_ strange. I consider Daleks adorable. Apparently _that _is strange. But they _are._


Daleks _are_ adorable. I refuse to find that strange.


----------



## Empecinado

srsly said:


> UM.
> 
> I know like, one of each?
> 
> INTP- The two I know are two of my best friends and are crazy funny.
> INTJ- Never leaves his room so how would I know? He thinks I'm annoying though, I know that.
> ENTJ- Is super funny and I enjoy her company.
> ENTP: Don't know if I have ACTUALLY ever met one.
> My sister is a suspected, super unhealthy, ENTP.
> 
> I like this guy, though.... a lot.


He seems to be trying way too hard.


----------



## srsly

^ I agree fully, but.... I still like him.


----------



## E_N_T_P

Kayness said:


> I love NTs...and NT men can be so dead sexy (not talking about looks but in terms of their views, principles and my interactions with them)!
> 
> here's a copy and pasted excerpt from a recent chat I had with a PerC NT guy...on why I love NTs:
> Also, they are often brutally honest, as in, they don't sugarcoat their words in order to preserve feelings, which I may not always like but I can at least take their word for it when they give an opinion. I have this frustrating tendency to think 'oh but you/he/she/they are just being nice' when somebody compliments me (though i try not to say it).
> 
> As for INTJs - yeah sure I get along very well with them. I base this on my relationship with my INTJ dad, two INTJ men I've dated and an INTJ bff.



Yep, I'm like that. Why do women always say they prefer an honest man, but when you tell them the truth they don't like it?


----------



## dalsgaard

lirulin said:


> It's not _that_ strange. I consider Daleks adorable. Apparently _that _is strange. But they _are._


Irulin.

You're strange.


----------



## LotusBlossom

E_N_T_P said:


> Yep, I'm like that. Why do women always say they prefer an honest man, but when you tell them the truth they don't like it?


 It's all about delivery - tact is crucial but alas, grossly deficient in many.

edit: intentions is also very important - are you being brutally honest in order to help the other person grow or is it unnecessarily hurtful?


----------



## Functianalyst

HannibalLecter said:


> Specifically INTJs.


People are people Lecter. Before this and TypologyC, there most forums to join were intuiting forums. The discussions at INTJF are the same discussions here. But you do see the need for conformity in limiting references to other forums, the exact size avatar that can be used. In that sense, I don't see INTJs being any different than ISTJs in the real world, living in communities with strict covenants. In fact I would not be able to distinguish an INJ from an ISJ.


----------



## lirulin

dalsgaard said:


> Irulin.
> 
> You're strange.


Thanks. (also, it is lirulin. with an L to start).


----------



## Intricate Mystic

E_N_T_P said:


> Yep, I'm like that. Why do women always say they prefer an honest man, but when you tell them the truth they don't like it?


The solution to this is to live your life in such a way that when you tell them the truth, they _do_ like it. :happy:


----------



## E_N_T_P

Intricate Mystic said:


> The solution to this is to live your life in such a way that when you tell them the truth, they _do_ like it. :happy:


What do you mean? Are you saying I should change my life?


----------



## Intricate Mystic

E_N_T_P said:


> What do you mean? Are you saying I should change my life?


Yes, perhaps so. Otherwise, the choices are to either tell the truth and have women not like it, or lie, neither of which is attractive. Of course, another option would be to tell the truth but in a tactful manner. It all depends on what truths you were referring to.


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> The solution to this is to live your life in such a way that when you tell them the truth, they _do_ like it. :happy:


Let's play the Sensor game: The solution is to have them experience you and your life in such a way that according to their understanding of the truth, they do like it. Yay Pareto efficiency!


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> Let's play the Sensor game: The solution is to have them experience you and your life in such a way that according to their understanding of the truth, they do like it. Yay Pareto efficiency!


That approach seems a lot more complicated. How do you change how someone else experiences you? Are you still being authentic when you do that?


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> That approach seems a lot more complicated. How do you change how someone else experiences you? Are you still being authentic when you do that?


Well, how do most people experience other people? Through concrete senses, through hearsay and wordplay, etc. etc. Of course, part of the experience is internal, but we can certainly work to give off a specific image of ourselves towards another individual, no?

So essentially, looking at your interactions with another person from _their_ perspective, in terms of what they see and hear and feel and not what you do or how you act. Y'know, the whole walking a mile in someone else's shoes thing? 

What is authenticity, and why do we strive for it? If my good and goal was to foster warm relations with others, is it not in my authentic interest to give off appearances that appeal to others? After all, since we're talking about relations between people, isn't it already assumed that our ability to live out our desires can be influenced by other people?


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> Well, how do most people experience other people? Through concrete senses, through hearsay and wordplay, etc. etc. Of course, part of the experience is internal, but we can certainly work to give off a specific image of ourselves towards another individual, no?


Yes, and in maintaining smooth social interactions, everyone has to conform themselves a bit to meet the expectations of others.



> So essentially, looking at your interactions with another person from _their_ perspective, in terms of what they see and hear and feel and not what you do or how you act. Y'know, the whole walking a mile in someone else's shoes thing?


I understand this, but from an introvert's perspective, thinking entirely about the other person's perspective of me while interacting with them would be a huge stretch because I'm not good at doing this (in comparison to ENTPs and ESTPs who can be absolutely masterful at it). Also, even if I were good at this, I would feel like the "me" in the interaction had disappeared entirely, so I wouldn't feel like I was "being myself". In contrast, I would imagine extroverts can do this without feeling a loss of self or feeling they are being someone other than their true self?



> What is authenticity, and why do we strive for it? If my good and goal was to foster warm relations with others, is it not in my authentic interest to give off appearances that appeal to others? After all, since we're talking about relations between people, isn't it already assumed that our ability to live out our desires can be influenced by other people?


My idea of authenticity is being yourself, knowing yourself, and staying true to your core self in your interactions with others. I think it's important to strive for it because it's truth. As Gandhi said,"God is truth". Sure, being able to have warm relations with other people is important in life and it's certainly true that we sometimes need other people to accomplish our goals in life and live the type of life we want to. It's also possible for some people to go through life successfully with only minimal reliance on others.


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> I understand this, but from an introvert's perspective, thinking entirely about the other person's perspective of me while interacting with them would be a huge stretch because I'm not good at doing this (in comparison to ENTPs and ESTPs who can be absolutely masterful at it). Also, even if I were good at this, I would feel like the "me" in the interaction had disappeared entirely, so I wouldn't feel like I was "being myself". In contrast, I would imagine extroverts can do this without feeling a loss of self or feeling they are being someone other than their true self?


I don't think this is as much of an introvert-extrovert thing as you see it as. I'm not advocating losing yourself in understanding another person's perspective; rather, under my interpretation, I would build a model of the other person's perspective and mindset and then play around with manipulating around that model. That is, I'm not literally trying to be or see the world as someone else, but understanding their perspective via a model or proxy. This is probably more of a Ti trait, I'd say, given your example of the ENTPs and ESTPs.

How does one feel like one was 'being oneself' or 'not being oneself'? How does one lose oneself in an interaction? Let's take a hypothetical scenario: I myself want a pie, and there's an orc in between me and the pie. I construct a model of how the orc would react to different sensory experiences and proceed to act according to that model with the goal of removing the orc as an obstacle between myself and my goal. With the orc out of the way, I can resume my personal desire and consume the pie.

Here, I'm choosing to act in such a way that in the short term does not exactly represent my wishes in a vacuum (perhaps befriending the orc), in order to construct a larger set of actions that do reflect my personal wishes and desires in the long run. Nothing but means to an end, no different than a spade or a hammer.



> My idea of authenticity is being yourself, knowing yourself, and staying true to your core self in your interactions with others. I think it's important to strive for it because it's truth. As Gandhi said,"God is truth". Sure, being able to have warm relations with other people is important in life and it's certainly true that we sometimes need other people to accomplish our goals in life and live the type of life we want to. It's also possible for some people to go through life successfully with only minimal reliance on others.


What is one's core self composed of? I think we might be seeing this differently; I see the self as a package of ends and means towards those ends, while from what I can tell you see the self as more like a set of behaviors and actions. So under my system, it'd be comprehensible to act against one's general behavior for some greater end, while under yours to act against one's normal behavior would be by definition incomprehensible and anti-self. Does that kind of grasp at where our difference in thought my reside?


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> I don't think this is as much of an introvert-extrovert thing as you see it as. I'm not advocating losing yourself in understanding another person's perspective; rather, under my interpretation, I would build a model of the other person's perspective and mindset and then play around with manipulating around that model. That is, I'm not literally trying to be or see the world as someone else, but understanding their perspective via a model or proxy. This is probably more of a Ti trait, I'd say, given your example of the ENTPs and ESTPs.


Interesting. What information do you use to build the model? Is it based on your assessment of their MBTI type or something else?



> How does one feel like one was 'being oneself' or 'not being oneself'? How does one lose oneself in an interaction? Let's take a hypothetical scenario: I myself want a pie, and there's an orc in between me and the pie. I construct a model of how the orc would react to different sensory experiences and proceed to act according to that model with the goal of removing the orc as an obstacle between myself and my goal. With the orc out of the way, I can resume my personal desire and consume the pie.
> 
> Here, I'm choosing to act in such a way that in the short term does not exactly represent my wishes in a vacuum (perhaps befriending the orc), in order to construct a larger set of actions that do reflect my personal wishes and desires in the long run. Nothing but means to an end, no different than a spade or a hammer.


So are you saying you would befriend the orc? If so, would that be a true friending or a fake friending just for the purpose of getting to the pie? 



> What is one's core self composed of? I think we might be seeing this differently; I see the self as a package of ends and means towards those ends, while from what I can tell you see the self as more like a set of behaviors and actions. So under my system, it'd be comprehensible to act against one's general behavior for some greater end, while under yours to act against one's normal behavior would be by definition incomprehensible and anti-self. Does that kind of grasp at where our difference in thought my reside?


Yes, kind of. My sense of self also includes the moral codes I try to follow and my ways of thinking about the world, so it's about what's going on internally in addition to outwardly observable behaviors and actions.


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> Interesting. What information do you use to build the model? Is it based on your assessment of their MBTI type or something else?


I would use my prior interactions with that person to inform my model. So, like "John usually appears happy when I give him presents" informs the model "If I give John presents, John will be happy".



> So are you saying you would befriend the orc? If so, would that be a true friending or a fake friending just for the purpose of getting to the pie?


I wouldn't be befriending the orc, or at least not from my perspective. I would be acting as a friend would act, to appear to be a friend of the orc, for the purpose of getting to the pie. I wouldn't consider it to be a friending at all, real or fake, from my perspective.



> Yes, kind of. My sense of self also includes the moral codes I try to follow and my ways of thinking about the world, so it's about what's going on internally in addition to outwardly observable behaviors and actions.


Right, moral codes, I tend to forget about things like that. Or at least, I would see a moral code as a set of actions or behaviors that one finds conducive towards one's goals (living a moral life, for example). I'm probably coming off as more objectifying of people than I mean to be; blame my Economics major xD.


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> I would use my prior interactions with that person to inform my model. So, like "John usually appears happy when I give him presents" informs the model "If I give John presents, John will be happy".


Thanks for explaining.



> I wouldn't be befriending _the orc_, or at least not from my perspective. I would be acting as a friend would act, to appear to be a friend of the orc, for the purpose of getting to the pie. I wouldn't consider it to be a friending at all, real or fake, from my perspective.


Wouldn't the orc think you were being fake, though, if he later became aware that you had only _appeared_ to be his friend? Also, I would imagine this realization would hurt his feelings (assuming orcs have feelings that is...they do seem to in movies).



> Right, moral codes, I tend to forget about things like that. Or at least, I would see a moral code as a set of actions or behaviors that one finds conducive towards one's goals (living a moral life, for example). I'm probably coming off as more objectifying of people than I mean to be; blame my Economics major xD.


No worries....I can tell you have a good heart under your logical statements. :happy:


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> Thanks for explaining.
> 
> Wouldn't the orc think you were being fake, though, if he later became aware that you had only _appeared_ to be his friend? Also, I would imagine this realization would hurt his feelings (assuming orcs have feelings that is...they do seem to in movies).


Well, the hope is that he never becomes aware that from my perspective I did not see him as a friend.

It's an interesting question, philosophically. Suppose I act like a good friend to another person, and from the other person's perspective we are both good friends, but I really don't see them as a friend. Still, it would appear as a normal friendship to any observer who did not have access to my own thoughts but only my actions. Is that a 'true' or 'good' course of action for me? Is it duplicitous to continue not seeing him as a friend, even if in all my actions it is exactly as if I did?

Imagine if everyone you've ever been friends with or loved, say, was actually being paid to be with you. Would that bother you, if you knew that they acted no differently than if the emotions were real?

On another thought, would you be okay with lying to someone you loved, if that would make them happier?



> No worries....I can tell you have a good heart under your logical statements. :happy:


Haha, well thanks then. NT's tend not to get that very often xD.


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> Well, the hope is that he never becomes aware that from my perspective I did not see him as a friend.
> 
> It's an interesting question, philosophically. Suppose I act like a good friend to another person, and from the other person's perspective we are both good friends, but I really don't see them as a friend. Still, it would appear as a normal friendship to any observer who did not have access to my own thoughts but only my actions. Is that a 'true' or 'good' course of action for me? Is it duplicitous to continue not seeing him as a friend, even if in all my actions it is exactly as if I did?


In my opinion, it wouldn't be a good course of action because it isn't truth. It would be duplicitous because there's more to us than our outward behavior. You would know in your soul that you were treating the person as a friend but didn't really feel that way about them.



> Imagine if everyone you've ever been friends with or loved, say, was actually being paid to be with you. Would that bother you, if you knew that they acted no differently than if the emotions were real?


Yes, it would bother me because I would probably detect from subtle cues that they didn't actually consider me a friend or love me. I would want the real thing! Even if they had the ability to bring all of their body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice into alignment convincingly, it wouldn't be real because it's just acting. If you go to a play and the actors do a great job of portraying their characters, that doesn't mean they actually are the person they are portraying, you know?



> On another thought, would you be okay with lying to someone you loved, if that would make them happier?


It would depend on the circumstances. For example, if I somehow had foreknowledge that they were going to die in a car crash in a week and I knew them well enough to know they would rather not have this information, I probably wouldn't tell them. In a different scenario, if lying would only make them slightly happier, I would probably opt for the truth. 



> Haha, well thanks then. NT's tend not to get that very often xD.


Your welcome. :happy:


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> In my opinion, it wouldn't be a good course of action because it isn't truth. It would be duplicitous because there's more to us than our outward behavior. You would know in your soul that you were treating the person as a friend but didn't really feel that way about them.


Okay, so what is not true is not good. So what is true is good, or what is good is true?



> Yes, it would bother me because I would probably detect from subtle cues that they didn't actually consider me a friend or love me. I would want the real thing! Even if they had the ability to bring all of their body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice into alignment convincingly, it wouldn't be real because it's just acting. If you go to a play and the actors do a great job of portraying their characters, that doesn't mean they actually are the person they are portraying, you know?


Well, let's assume it's an ENTP so we don't have to consider failure . It seems like your logical flow goes like this: this relationship is acting, this is not real, this is not true, this is not good?



> It would depend on the circumstances. For example, if I somehow had foreknowledge that they were going to die in a car crash in a week and I knew them well enough to know they would rather not have this information, I probably wouldn't tell them. In a different scenario, if lying would only make them slightly happier, I would probably opt for the truth.


Let's make the scenario a bit more fixed, then. Suppose you had a SO who was a devout Christian, and was very happy that you were too. Then, at some point, you lose your faith. Do you continue as before, keeping your knowledge to yourself? Or do you tell your SO and stop going to church, knowing that that will *severely* upset them?


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> Okay, so what is not true is not good. So what is true is good, or what is good is true?


Yes.



> Well, let's assume it's an ENTP so we don't have to consider failure . It seems like your logical flow goes like this: this relationship is acting, this is not real, this is not true, this is not good?


Yes, that is correct. (I'm suddenly starting to feel like I'm on the witness stand being questioned by an attorney. lol. Have you considered a career in law?)



> Let's make the scenario a bit more fixed, then. Suppose you had a SO who was a devout Christian, and was very happy that you were too. Then, at some point, you lose your faith. Do you continue as before, keeping your knowledge to yourself? Or do you tell your SO and stop going to church, knowing that that will *severely* upset them?


That's an easy one. Christians sometimes have dry spells when their faith wavers and they can't seem to feel the presence of God in their lives. Even Mother Theresa went through times like that. I would keep going to church but probably admit loss of faith to my SO. If they are a mature Christian, they will know this happens sometimes and would hopefully give me some encouragement and pray for me. If they are _really good, _they would also tell me about some great books to read on the topic.


----------



## Coppertony

Intricate Mystic said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes, that is correct. (I'm suddenly starting to feel like I'm on the witness stand being questioned by an attorney. lol. Have you considered a career in law?)


Haha, once upon a time. I realized that I'd rather do creative work like business or tech, but then again I'm still in college so who knows? Otherwise, I'm just a big fan of Socrates xD.



> That's an easy one. Christians sometimes have dry spells when their faith wavers and they can't seem to feel the presence of God in their lives. Even Mother Theresa went through times like that. I would keep going to church but probably admit loss of faith to my SO. If they are a mature Christian, they will know this happens sometimes and would hopefully give me some encouragement and pray for me. If they are _really good, _they would also tell me about some great books to read on the topic.


I guess I was leading at the case where they were not mature and took the loss of faith poorly? This was probably a bad example, given that spiritual faith is a bit deeper than the lies I meant to discuss.

Maybe more like, suppose your mother worries a lot every time you get sick, you know she's been going through some tough times and don't want to upset her more, she calls and you've just come down with the flu. If she asks if you're sick, do you say yes or no?


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> I guess I was leading at the case where they were not mature and took the loss of faith poorly? This was probably a bad example, given that spiritual faith is a bit deeper than the lies I meant to discuss.
> 
> Maybe more like, suppose your mother worries a lot every time you get sick, you know she's been going through some tough times and don't want to upset her more, she calls and you've just come down with the flu. If she asks if you're sick, do you say yes or no?


I would say yes but downplay the symptoms. I really do prefer to be honest with people as much as possible. If I answered no to her, and she found out later that I had lied, that would be soooo damaging to her trust in me. Maintaining trust with parents is important to me. At the same time, being cognizant of the fact that she's going through tough times, I would talk to her about her life and give her emotional support to try to help her with whatever she's facing. I think that addresses both situations in the most honest way. What would you do in that situation?


----------



## Eleventeenth

This is exactly why they don't like us. We end up taking over threads and conversations with complex thoughts and analysis to the point that the conversation is no longer what they intended it to be.


----------



## Coppertony

Eleventeenth said:


> This is exactly why they don't like us. We end up taking over threads and conversations with complex thoughts and analysis to the point that the conversation is no longer what they intended it to be.


I beg to differ. I find that these deeper conversations can really show a lot about us, as people and as 'types' on a really basic level. Besides, the NF started it  @IntricateMystic


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Coppertony said:


> I beg to differ. I find that these deeper conversations can really show a lot about us, as people and as 'types' on a really basic level. Besides, the NF started it  @IntricateMystic


Well, the delightfully laid-back SPs didn't complain, so I was hoping they were getting something out of the discussion. Besides, interesting things can happen when ENTPs and INFJs get going. I've heard that when ENTPs and INFJs start getting flirty it turns the INTPs on.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility

Intricate Mystic said:


> Well, the delightfully laid-back SPs didn't complain, so I was hoping they were getting something out of the discussion. Besides, interesting things can happen when ENTPs and INFJs get going. I've heard that when ENTPs and INFJs start getting flirty it turns the INTPs on.


What *doesn't* turn the INTPs on?


----------



## Intricate Mystic

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> What *doesn't* turn the INTPs on?


Oh, I didn't know they were like that. *blushes*


----------



## pericles

Eleventeenth said:


> This is exactly why they don't like us. We end up taking over threads and conversations with complex thoughts and analysis to the point that the conversation is no longer what they intended it to be.


Congratulations. Your Ne just reached an absolute truth.

(Though I like Ns I just don't like what they did to the thread)


----------



## aon11deag

i think it's the other way around haha  i feel like everything i do annoys NT's. i mean, i'm fine with them. except the only thing i dislike about them is they always judge me for who i am and what i'm not and won't just let me live my life the way i want to. also the ones i've met in my life don't understand that life experiences are not if/then hypotheses.

my dad is INTJ and i think he's really funny because he always tries to schedule my day, wake me up early, and clean my room but it almost never happens :| but i feel bad because scheduling and organization is very dear to him.


----------



## Nessie

SimuLord said:


> Since my personality "shifted" from INTP (where it was for most of my youth) to ISTP (where it is now and has been since at least two years ago when I did a Keirsey sorter for a college class), I tend to see NTs as rigid know-it-alls who need to grow up and realize that the world's not as black and white as they like it, and I tend to find them spiritually dead (although again, I was an atheist before finding pagan religion at age 30).
> 
> Your mileage may vary, but I see moving from NT to SP as part of my maturation.


Im "spiritually dead" myself and Im an SP. Im "spiritually dead" from the end of pre-school age, in early pre-school age I didnt question at all other people believes, despite I didnt believe in the same things. Part of maturation or development also, might?

*What do you tnink about NTs:*
I generaly tend to prefere xSxPs and ExxPs to IxxJs. For me more of P vs. J thing than SP vs. NT. But its not a strict rule, depends on person a lot.

I have more numerous experiences with ENTPs and INTJs.

ENTPs: 
No problem. I have lots of ENTP friends and we tend to take piss of each other in regular basis, both sides looks entertained with that. Good sense for humour and they are inventive. Also helps that they are able to express themselves without asking and are good at.

INTJs:
I like informations and they are good at reaching informations and passing it to others. That I would make other conclussions with same information (mercy,pls.: a bit of common sense....), thats another story. But they often focuse at topic itself (unlike many other J types), so other peoples attitudes basically permited. 

Guess Im a bit on their nerves sometimes too, being strong E. I red on this board one INTJs women message to ESTPs "please, spare us your friends". It reminded me of some situations.....

Other NTs?:
Not that frequent experience of nearer contact (friends, work, familly) with really confirmed ones. I dont like much "guess the type" game and dont want base my judgement on sample size of 5 confirmed people I know with some temperament.


----------



## Thalassa

More and more often, I just try not to. Even in helping them, or thinking I'm helping them, they become nasty in a way that can be completely appalling to me when they're immature.

Only when they're immature, though. Especially immature NT males, they are the worst. They are excruciatingly awful.

They probably feel the same about SPs. 

On the other hand, mature NTs can be really cool people. It really depends on the person. 

I don't like how smug they try to be when they think they are more rational than everyone on earth, or when they believe they can know everything just from reading a book. 

Awesome NTs are awesome. I don't want to tar them all with the same brush, of course.


----------



## WolfStar

This thread is like a giant ego masturbatory session for me. To everyone: go on...


----------



## Empress Appleia Cattius XII

Rainbow said:


> They have their own set of rules and tend to judge.


Unless they're percievers.


----------



## Jason Chan

amnorvend said:


> An INTP is as likely if not more likely to start a debate than other rationals (with the exception of an ENTP). The difference being that an NTJ is much less likely to admit that they are wrong. They'll generally have strong convictions that are backed by strong logic.
> 
> NTPs like to debate, but more often than not, an INTP is trying to convince him/herself as much as they're trying to convince you. I really like starting arguments, but most of the time they end with me thinking to myself something along the lines of "I never thought of it that way!" Thus, I have a tendency to lose most of the arguments I start.


I am an INTP who doesn't like to debate ... What a waste of time and energy!


----------



## Eleventeenth

Rainbow said:


> They have their own set of rules and tend to judge.





aon11deag said:


> i think it's the other way around haha  i feel like everything i do annoys NT's. i mean, i'm fine with them. except the only thing i dislike about them is they always judge me for who i am and what i'm not and won't just let me live my life the way i want to. also the ones i've met in my life don't understand that life experiences are not if/then hypotheses.
> 
> my dad is INTJ and i think he's really funny because he always tries to schedule my day, wake me up early, and clean my room but it almost never happens :| but i feel bad because scheduling and organization is very dear to him.





fourtines said:


> More and more often, I just try not to. Even in helping them, or thinking I'm helping them, they become nasty in a way that can be completely appalling to me when they're immature.
> 
> Only when they're immature, though. Especially immature NT males, they are the worst. They are excruciatingly awful.
> 
> They probably feel the same about SPs.
> 
> On the other hand, mature NTs can be really cool people. It really depends on the person.
> 
> I don't like how smug they try to be when they think they are more rational than everyone on earth, or when they believe they can know everything just from reading a book.
> 
> Awesome NTs are awesome. I don't want to tar them all with the same brush, of course.


Haha, this is funny that many perceive us NT's as having all kinds of rules. NTJ's are definitely more into rules (or having specific ways of doing things) than NTP's, on average. But, you're right, the "NT" is sort of a code that there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way. SFP's are fun - I enjoy their fun loving nature, but they do baffle me with the way they do things sometimes. Sometimes I go to the grocery store and buy a dinner to go. They dish me up mashed potatoes and then they poor gravy on top. Or sometimes I get vegetables and they have lots of juice in the veggies. So, when I pay for my meal, I always watch how they put the box in the bag. Some of the workers will put my box flat in the grocery bag so that the gravy doesn't spill. Others put it in a totally crooked way so that the box isn't laying flat - and if I pick the bag up, the juice or the gravy will spill out of the box and go all over inside the bag. 

So, I always have to fix the position of the box before I pick up the bag. This is the kind of thing that totally ticks off NT's, because it just takes a little bit of logical thinking to realize that the gravy is going to spill all over if you put the box in crooked. I always think, "Why would _anybody _put the box in the bag in such a crooked way?" Sometimes it's so bad that when I pick up the bag, the box is almost totally vertical instead of horizontal - and stuff spills everywhere. All they have to do is lay the box flat. I know it sounds totally anal, but it's such an easy thing and it's very logical and simple. It's not that we want "rules" (NTP's actually hate rules), it's just that when people do things haphazardly, or illogically, it often creates a total mess - a mess that was totally avoidable. And if you say, "Why would you do that? Why not just do it this way?" Then they say, "Oh, I didn't know." Or they get upset and think you're being mean or being anal. So I just walk away thinking, "Oh well. My gravy is all over the bag and when I get home my potatoes won't have any gravy left on them. No big deal I guess...but it sure would have been nice to have that gravy on top."

That's one reason I enjoy working with a bunch of NT's - because we're usually all on the same page about this kind of stuff and so everything tends to run smoothly. They understand the "NT" code.


----------



## Thalassa

Eleventeenth said:


> Haha, this is funny that many perceive us NT's as having all kinds of rules. NTJ's are definitely more into rules (or having specific ways of doing things) than NTP's, on average. But, you're right, the "NT" is sort of a code that there is a right way of doing things and a wrong way. SFP's are fun - I enjoy their fun loving nature, but they do baffle me with the way they do things sometimes. Sometimes I go to the grocery store and buy a dinner to go. They dish me up mashed potatoes and then they poor gravy on top. Or sometimes I get vegetables and they have lots of juice in the veggies. So, when I pay for my meal, I always watch how they put the box in the bag. Some of the workers will put my box flat in the grocery bag so that the gravy doesn't spill. Others put it in a totally crooked way so that the box isn't laying flat - and if I pick the bag up, the juice or the gravy will spill out of the box and go all over inside the bag.
> 
> So, I always have to fix the position of the box before I pick up the bag. This is the kind of thing that totally ticks off NT's, because it just takes a little bit of logical thinking to realize that the gravy is going to spill all over if you put the box in crooked. I always think, "Why would _anybody _put the box in the bag in such a crooked way?" Sometimes it's so bad that when I pick up the bag, the box is almost totally vertical instead of horizontal - and stuff spills everywhere. All they have to do is lay the box flat. I know it sounds totally anal, but it's such an easy thing and it's very logical and simple. It's not that we want "rules" (NTP's actually hate rules), it's just that when people do things haphazardly, or illogically, it often creates a total mess - a mess that was totally avoidable.


I'm pretty sure that has less to do with being an SP and more to do with being a teenager (or someone who just doesn't care).

The restaurant business is full of SPs who don't ever give people vertical, spilling boxes of food.


----------



## Eleventeenth

fourtines said:


> I'm pretty sure that has less to do with being an SP and more to do with being a teenager (or someone who just doesn't care).
> 
> The restaurant business is full of SPs who don't ever give people vertical, spilling boxes of food.


Yeah, and I'm not implying that those individuals are SP's at my local grocery store. I'm just trying to illustrate a more general point about the "unwritten" NT rules. Actually, the STP's that I've known tend to be very logical. SFP's can really aggravate NT's when they make a decision that is not based on logic. And what's even more frustrating is when it has really bad results and they say, "Well, it's just what I felt like doing." I witnessed this recently and the SF said that, and the NT said, "Well, that's fine...but now you know why you got such strange results. If your input is illogical, then your output is likely to be illogical as well." And the SF thought he was being mean - he wasn't, he was just trying to show the difference between good results and bad results...wasting money versus putting it to efficient use, etc. 

I'm not trying to come in here and give SF's a hard time and start a pissing match. I'm just trying to give the NT perspective on some of the disagreements between the types. I'm sure NT's confuse SP's all the time...just like has been mentioned in this thread. I'm just trying to explain our side of it. I have no ongoing beef with SP's or SF's.


----------



## firedell

I sometimes wonder how someone can do most things based on logic, and not do something because you simply can.


----------



## Dimensional Transition

firedell said:


> I sometimes wonder how someone can do most things based on logic, and not do something because you simply can.


 I always wonder how one can possibly make decisions based on their 'feelings', it seems so incredibly dangerous to me, haha.

You're right though. You can't always do things based on logic, such as relationships. This is the area where a lot of NTs also tend to mess up. People are irrational as hell, and it gets frustrating.

For some reason, as an *NTP and having read this thread... I can't help but feel a little insulted. What's with all the NTP hate? No need to treat NTs like weird, arrogant heartless bastards... I have a lot of SP friends, we get along just fine! They like my humor and observations/conversations, I like their ability to actually *make* stuff, and be handy in lots of real life situations. If you combine the two, you get freakin' awesome projects. Good ideas + good execution.


----------



## dizzygirl

They are awesome!
They are usually my source of good conversation and food for thought. :happy:
And they also make for the kind of company I like a lot- interesting, engaging and non-intrusive.


----------



## Pianoasis

firedell said:


> I like the NTJ's, I do seem to struggle with NTP's though.


But why?
```


----------



## firedell

Pianoasis said:


> But why?
> ```


I have NO idea. I guess I know some immature NTP's that debate for debating sake. I see some NTP's on here who aren't like that. I should have mentioned it was people I knew in real life.


----------



## Treeton

I love NT's, more specifically NTP's. I mistyped myself as an INTP, so I hung out quite a lot in that forum. They're incredibly insightful and some of the most calm and collected individuals I know.


----------



## Boxter9

firedell said:


> I guess I know some immature NTP's that debate for debating sake.


I'm an ENTP and god, that drives me crazy too sometimes. D: It gets to the point where I have this seething hatred for phrases like "Well..." and "Yeah, but..."

It's one thing if we're arguing over whether Mozart or Mendelssohn was more prodigious, and another if I'm just trying to make a valid point about something I feel or an opinion I hold.


----------



## Neon Knight

Dimensional Transition said:


> I always wonder how one can possibly make decisions based on their 'feelings', it seems so incredibly dangerous to me, haha.


Ditto. Luckily we all eventually learn this one way or another, even the SFPs 



Dimensional Transition said:


> You're right though. You can't always do things based on logic, such as relationships. This is the area where a lot of NTs also tend to mess up. People are irrational as hell, and it gets frustrating.


And sometimes that is exactly what you should do though. Yeah a lot of people are hard to deal with when you can't rationalize with them, this I know wholeheartedly. Some are many times more irrational than others and I can't deal with that.



Dimensional Transition said:


> For some reason, as an *NTP and having read this thread... I can't help but feel a little insulted. What's with all the NTP hate? No need to treat NTs like weird, arrogant heartless bastards... I have a lot of SP friends, we get along just fine! They like my humor and observations/conversations, I like their ability to actually *make* stuff, and be handy in lots of real life situations. If you combine the two, you get freakin' awesome projects. Good ideas + good execution.


Well it's the internet. Try and be an SP online and see how you feel after a while. Irl we all (in my experience) get alolng great, but online there's this elitist crap that goes on and and I'm kind of like wtf...?


----------

