# Most Realistic of The NT Types



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

Who do you guys think are the most realistic of the NT types? Why? Give your reasoning.


----------



## Van (Dec 28, 2009)

Out of Ni, Ne, Ti and Te I think that Te would be since it is concerned with external logic, therefore ENTJ.


----------



## azrinsani (Jul 31, 2010)

What do you mean by realistic?


----------



## Zinette (May 4, 2010)

azrinsani said:


> What do you mean by realistic?


Least prone to have his or hers head in the clouds I think... least romantic?

But seriously now - I voted ENTJ, Se_nsors among Rationals.


----------



## azrinsani (Jul 31, 2010)

Zinette said:


> Least prone to have his or hers head in the clouds I think... least romantic?
> 
> But seriously now - I voted ENTJ, Se_nsors among Rationals.


:sad:

Yeah, I think ENTJ too. Cause we have Se as our third function.


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

azrinsani said:


> What do you mean by realistic?


Realistic:
1. Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are
2. Of or relating to the representation of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are


----------



## st0831 (Jul 13, 2010)

I picked ENTJ simply because realism is a extroverted. Realism requires input from reality and which introverts lack the effort to place themselves in. ENTPs would come in at second. But being realistic sucks, anyway. Rigid and not creative.


----------



## Phoenix Down (Jul 2, 2010)

Realistic? 
NT's are too good for that.
We deserve better than reality has to offer!

I'm voting INTP for their badass analysis powers.


----------



## Aßbiscuits (Oct 8, 2009)

In theory Te (concrete thinking) and Se (keeps you in tune with the outer world), I'll have to agree with ENTJ for this reason. 

That's all I got though.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

ENTJ: Te dom, Ni is there but not too high and also has Se more dominant than any other NT.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

IME, I'd actually say INTJs. The ENTJs I've known were too optimistic and believed that "anything can be done, if approached the right way." For that, I love ENTJs. They're incredible to go to for practical take-action advice.

INTJs, at least the ones I've known, are a bit more fatalistic. For example, I remember my INTJ and ENTJ got into this long debate about whether someone could improve their intelligence. INTJ said no, it's genetic. The ENTJ said yes, people just don't actually try to do it, but it's possible.

Then again, pessimism certainly doesn't always mean realism, but by common definition, there's my answer.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I don't consider NTs to be very "realistic" people. The focus on theory and concepts can make them seem very detached from reality. I don't think logical = realistic either. The real world does not make logical sense all the time and a realistic person does not demand it to. 

So I think I'd pin being realistic on the STs. Being Te-dom, ENTJs seem the most realistic of the NTs though. However, they still seem to be visionary types, less focused on what is than what could be, but Te may help them decide on how to implement these ideas in reality.


----------



## Chinchilla (May 27, 2010)

God said:


> INTJs, at least the ones I've known, are a bit more fatalistic. For example, I remember my INTJ and ENTJ got into this long debate about whether someone could improve their intelligence. INTJ said no, it's genetic. The ENTJ said yes, people just don't actually try to do it, but it's possible.
> 
> Then again, pessimism certainly doesn't always mean realism, but by common definition, there's my answer.


First intelligence must be properly defined. 



> the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience
> 
> 
> WordNet Search - 3.0
> ...


The INTJ is partially correct. Yes, it is genetic, but it also depends on how you are raised. You can learn ways to be more intelligent, but it is very difficult, and most naturally intelligent people have never been taught those ways, but still use them.

The ENTJ might be thinking of knowledge, and yes you can get more knowledge, and no it is not genetic.

In a way, they are both correct, but both wrong.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

INTP, and here's why

ENTJ's are dominant and crazy libertarians. Libertarian, that's enough to prove you are dumb as a doorknob.
INTJ's think they can guess and know everything.
ENTP's don't even really try to be strongly realistic and instead are the world's lovable crackpot inventors.
INTP's are all about thinking and logic so therefore we see the truth.


----------



## Zinette (May 4, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ENTJ's are dominant and crazy libertarians. Libertarian, that's enough to prove you are dumb as a doorknob.


Coming from you I take it as a compliment


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Sigh... The ENTJs _would_ be the first ones to claim this for themselves.

A couple of things:

1. Where did the idea that S is more realistic than N come from? N is realistic, it just works by inferring the unseen from the seen. The unseen exists just as much as the seen.
2. INTPs are also "sensors among rationals" due to tertiary Si. And I simply don't buy that Se is more "realistic" than Si (or Ne or Ni for that matter).
3. Do you mean making seeing reality or making realistic decisions?

How would we even decide which type is more realistic? To be completely honest, I don't think any of these types will agree on what reality even IS (Especially the INTJs. I mean, have you ever talked to one? :tongue


----------



## Ti Dominant (Sep 25, 2010)

ENTJ's rule everyone else in terms of being realistic.


----------



## Ti Dominant (Sep 25, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> INTP, and here's why


INTP's tend to be fantasy-prone and lost in their heads.


----------



## Vanitas (Dec 13, 2009)

Either ENTJs or INTJs, for different reasons. ENTJs are, like mentioned, tend to be optimistic (megalomaniacs)... while INTJs are.. _gloomy _people. Reality should be between them somewhere.

Not ENTP because reality is boring and not INTP because they see the details but seem to be missing the forest (or the continent) entirely. If it's an enclosed case of determined variables thing, INTP might work.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Vanitas said:


> Not ENTP because reality is boring and not INTP because they see the details but seem to be missing the forest (or the continent) entirely. If it's an enclosed case of determined variables thing, INTP might work.


...and ENTJs are so focused on having their "standards" and making sure everyone does things their way that they lose focus of what's really practical. Seriously, you can make any type seem unrealistic if you only focus on their weaknesses (but I don't think that's really a weakness of an INTP, probably more a result of them using Si because it's the only thing they have that's similar to anything you have). What about the ENTP's ability to infer things from the slightest detail? Or the INTP's ability to think outside the box when forming plans?

Personally, I'm tired of the "NTPs are disconnected from reality" meme. I'm very well connected with reality. I'm just not as well connected to your particular version of it.


----------



## reefercheefer (Nov 3, 2009)

I voted entj because i know a handfull of nt types which include 2 entj's 2 intps and an intj and i am an entp and i would have to say that the entjs are the most realistic.


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

First things first... whats is actually being 'realistic'? I belive that actually INTPs are definetly the most realistic people because we are the 'Thruth seekers' and because of that, we are actually the type thats closest of all to the thruth, or to the 'The Real Reality'.

But, assuming you've actually ment on the common, misleading, deceiving reality that everyone is preoccupied with, than yes, ENTJ takes the title...


----------



## reefercheefer (Nov 3, 2009)

Entr0py said:


> First things first... whats is actually being 'realistic'? I belive that actually INTPs are definetly the most realistic people because we are the 'Thruth seekers' and because of that, we are actually the type thats closest of all to the thruth, or to the 'The Real Reality'.
> 
> But, assuming you've actually ment on the common, misleading, deceiving reality that everyone is preoccupied with, than yes, ENTJ takes the title...


the truth seeker title doesnt actually mean anything...


----------



## Entr0py (Oct 20, 2010)

reefercheefer said:


> the truth seeker title doesnt actually mean anything...


And how do you know that? Im the truth seeker! Thats all Im doing in this freakin life. I want to know how this world is working (in its core), what are the misconseptions and misinterpretations of this world, understand them and then see the real truth. Nothing ever excites me than talking about the philosophical questions. 

I know that ENTPs also like to think and speak about does things. But you are extroverted, so the time we INTPs are thinking in our brain to see the truth, you are having fun with John Smith.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't think that 'truth seeker'= 'realistic'. Not the way I'm thinking about it. The only reason I would pick INTP is because they have tertiary sensing.


----------



## ImNoTJustletters (Sep 24, 2010)

I think both INTJ and ENTJ have greater realist tendencies, INTJs tend to be realist in their understanding of what is, and ENTJs are realist in their interaction with what is.
INTP and ENTP types tend to be idealists and sceptics.


----------



## Wien1938 (Nov 21, 2009)

INTJ because the ENTJs can be blindsided by conventional logic and fail to pay attention to the inner voice of Ni.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

Anyone noticing a pattern here?

The ENTJs seem to unanimously believe that they're the most realistic.
The INTJs seem to unanimously believe that they're the most realistic.
INTPs are divided between themselves and the ENTJs.
ENTPs seem to unanimously believe the _ENTJs_ are more realistic.

Perhaps this is proof of what Jung was talking about here? It sure seems to me that everyone here devalues introverted judging including the introverted judgers... 

Personally, I think the NTPs are being hard on themselves, and that doesn't really benefit the NTPs or the NTJs.


----------



## Zinette (May 4, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> Anyone noticing a pattern here?
> 
> The ENTJs seem to unanimously believe that they're the most realistic.
> The INTJs seem to unanimously believe that they're the most realistic.
> ...



Pattern shmattern  We are winning the poll ^^


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

In my very unrealistic and uneducated opinion:

-NTJ's: more empirical
-NTP's: more theoretical

Define reality however you like.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

I understand being unrealistic is a bad thing, but since when is being "realistic" a virtue? Just leads to being small minded in my opinion. Of course, negating reality entirely is stupid, but you need to be able to think outside the box and challenge accepted "wisdom" (even if that means trying stupid ideas) to come up with something that is innovative. You just need to make sure you haven't lost the "common sense check" to evaluate your ideas with at the end of the day. That's all.


----------



## ImNoTJustletters (Sep 24, 2010)

nevermore said:


> I understand being unrealistic is a bad thing, but since when is being "realistic" a virtue? Just leads to being small minded in my opinion. Of course, negating reality entirely is stupid, but you need to be able to think outside the box and challenge accepted "wisdom" (even if that means trying stupid ideas) to come up with something that is innovative. You just need to make sure you haven't lost the "common sense check" to evaluate your ideas with at the end of the day. That's all.


The theory, or idea, of $100 is not a cent more or a cent less than the reality of $100. But the reality, (that is the possibility,) of $100 makes a significant difference to my financial position, where the theory does not.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

This depends on the definition of reality.

I have a argument in progress with an INTP friend of mine about this. We can not even agree about this basic axiom.

To me, reality is that which physically is. That which have actual, factual, measurable existence, and nothing else.

To him, reality is _his own logical interpretation_ of both the world, and of his own thoughts and opinions. This makes him consider even his own value judgments as absolute truth since they were reached in a logical manner.

This leads us into a lot of arguments following this pattern:
Him (about, for example, using a piece of software): "What kind of idiot designed this? Why does this do that? This should work like that instead!"

Me: "Well, this is how it works. We are supposed to use this tool, not redesign it. Learn to use it instead of being angry at the learning curve."

Him: "But if they would just have done this and this and this, it would work so much better. It would be easier to understand. After all, the purpose of this thing is to be user friendly."

Me: "You didn't design it. You don't know if the designer's purpose was to make it user friendly."

Him: "That would be irrational. It is software that's supposed to be used by people. The only rational thing, then, is to make it user friendly."

Me: "Yeah. You're still arguing, which means you are not actively learning to use the software, which is what you're supposed to do."

... And so on. About pretty much anything.

I think I am more realistic simply because I don't consider my own value judgments "real". To me, mixing up fact and values (which are opposites) is a pretty serious thought-crime. Keeping them separate at all times is fundamental to my world view.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> To me, reality is that which physically is. That which have actual, factual, measurable existence, and nothing else.


I don't think the INTP thought he was being realistic in this case. I don't think he would argue that reality_ is _,literally, _his_ interpreation of the world. He would realize how ridiculous he sounded. Perhaps his idea of the way things "should be" seems like his "reality" to you, because Te gets its judgments from the "real world", but that doesn't mean that a Ti dominant contests the definition of reality. We just don't involve it directly in our highest mental process, because we are introverts. Nor do I think he was mixing up facts and "values". He was just (foolishly and immaturely) focuing on how things should ideally be instead of just living with it and getting the job done. There is of course a place for his way of thinking, but not at that time.

If your argument is that ENTJ's are the most realistic, fine, but I don't think INTP's actually have a different defintion of it. We just don't care about it as much.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

nevermore said:


> I don't think he would argue that reality_ is _,literally, _his_ interpreation of the world. He would realize how ridiculous he sounded.


Exactly. Otherwise there would be little difference between the INTP's personal reality and Never Never Land.


----------



## ImNoTJustletters (Sep 24, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> I think I am more realistic simply because I don't consider my own value judgments "real". To me, mixing up fact and values (which are opposites) is a pretty serious thought-crime. Keeping them separate at all times is fundamental to my world view.


So, you value facts more than you value value?


----------



## ImNoTJustletters (Sep 24, 2010)

Logic, philosophy, the sciences, all as "ends in themselves" are nothing but a set of rules or a grouping of data. Their value lies in how they correspond to objects, to things, and to life.
Behind every philosophy and behind every science there exists the psychology of an individual and their relation to the world as they perceive it.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

ImNoTJustletters said:


> So, you value facts more than you value value?


That's irrelevant.

What's relevant is that facts are fixed and objective.

Values are variable depending on who's evaluating.

Also, values do not possess the power to change fact, while fact should always change evaluation if the two by some strange incident contradict eachother.

For example:

"This shirt is red" is a fact, given that the shirt de facto does reflect light in certain ways previously defined as "red".

"This shirt is ugly" is an evaluation disguised as fact, and can neither be right nor wrong, since it is beyond the realm of proof.

The correct formulation would be "_I think _this shirt is ugly" or "_I find_ this shirt to be ugly", and such statements are entirely subjective and in fact irrelevant.


----------



## ImNoTJustletters (Sep 24, 2010)

NiDBiLD said:


> That's irrelevant.
> 
> What's relevant is that facts are fixed and objective.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I was trying to be funny.

I do however disagree that it is irrelevant. On the contrary, I think it is very relevant, and important, that you value a fact, or idea, as it corresponds to the reality of the idea. For without the reality, the idea is nothing but words, or as has been said, _flatus vocis_.

Neither facts or values can be exclusively considered truth as relative to real life. For with the one, we end up only with things and data about things, and with the other only subjective judgements. So we must strike a balance if we are to be able to get on with life. Unfortunately, for most of us, this balance is to be found wholly in the unconscious mind, and so the 'out working' of our unconscious, what Jung calls _fantasy_, is what must be methodically consulted to find the mechanisms of this balance.

We recognise that there is a balance, but the degree to which one prefers Thinking or Feeling does not presuppose a complete lack of use of it's opposite.


(On a side note, it is a verifiable fact that my sister is ugly, even in a disguise.:tongue


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> Anyone noticing a pattern here?
> The ENTJs seem to unanimously believe that they're the most realistic.


Because they uses a concept of realism that automatically favors them, making their conclusion a tautology. For many of them: being realistic = having pragmatical ideas, an area where they excell.



> The INTJs seem to unanimously believe that they're the most realistic.


What a irony. Many of them do not believe in the reality as a fully real concept.
Maybe an excess of self-confidence here, caused because they're the best planners, therefore the best achieving their usually also pragmatical goals. The more sucess you have in your goals, the more confidence in your method. 



> INTPs are divided between themselves and the ENTJs.


The "truth seekes" see sometimes themselves as the best positioned for knowing reality (what is not necessarily true, neither automatically false), but we also doubt about our ideas (we do not perceive truth as something that someone can possess, only tries to achive) therefore taking sometimes side with the "objetive knowers"=ENTJs



> ENTPs seem to unanimously believe the _ENTJs_ are more realistic.


They're aware of the non pragmatical nature of their ideas, rejecting themselves. But being also extroverted, feel a strong connection with the outside world -> they take side with the pragmatical extroverts. 

P.S. Very good link.


----------

