# How to learn to trust the "logic" of your intuition?



## mental blockstack (Dec 15, 2011)

So basically, I always test INTP and I tend to overthink/overcomplicate everything. I notice the fine details, and am quick to see logic where it can apply.

A potential weakness (or misuse of an additional strength) is when I get an intuition about something, yet fail to realize the logic in following it. (A "feeling" or "voice inside my head" can be dismissed as irrational, right?) Not necessarily.

For example, there have been times when I didn't bother to follow through on an inner intuition which ...suggested (?) taking a precaution. Having done this would have maximized control in my plan, which ended up failing. Or protected me from falling victim to someone else's plan, to recall another example.

I suppose the skill is in learning to differentiate between what is a precautionary intuition, versus just another random thought about something. I don't know how many other INTPs relate to this...maybe INTJs can relate, with their Ni, but maybe they also just tend to trust their intuitions no matter what, and then their struggle/confusion is with internal feelings and external data, rather than with internal logic. Maybe I should ask ISTPs as well?

Using both logic and intuition would really bring out a fuller intelligence...though I seem to use Ne no problem already. But Ne tends to react to the present more than thoughts about the future. I suppose in some ways I'm interested in developing both Si, and Ne's ability to be longer-range. Well, it's mostly getting the robotic Ti to trust that Ne/Pi in the kitchen. Or if the intuition I fail to trust is a shadow Ni popping out...whatever, now I'm getting too technical with this function theory


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I don't believe ISTPs go through this, I mean, I've been there and seen threads like this, they thought they understood but they don't have quite the same experience as you.

It is an Ne thing, probably. It's often recalled that Ne has many possibilities, all of which are somewhat neutral, and none of them stick out as important. That's where Ti comes in and takes this neutral information and applies the twists and turns that need to go to it. If you're having a problem with differentiating the internal judgement/application of your intuition, it actually might be a Ti/Fe issue where Fe is fucking Ti long-term, because Ti is the thing that's actually selecting out this information. 

Have anxiety by any chance?


----------



## Dr. J (May 11, 2014)

@GYX_Kid

Practice listening inwardly. You'll learn which voice is truth and which is anxiety. 
Only way I can explain it. "Learn yourself".


----------



## phato (Jul 6, 2013)

Good question you are asking. 

When I was still in highschool, I would always have an intuition about the question being asked; though I did not always trust this intuition. Here I was then taking a test, when this question pops up, and I have no idea what the answer is. My intuition tells me that answer is C, but I just couldnt apply any logic to it; I chose answer B. (note: this actually happened quite a few times). When we then later on got the test results back, I would see to my imagination that my intuition was right. And from that day on, I learned to trust my intuition.

But as Dr. J mentioned, it can be hard to tell apart the anxiety and the truth.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

For ENTJ: Always check your intuition with facts. 

For INTJ: Always check your intuition with facts. 

For INTP: You're screwed. 

For ENTP: You're screwed.


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

There is no logic in intuition it is irrational. But check if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Surreal Snake said:


> There is no logic in intuition it is irrational. But check if it makes you feel better.


I find that most of the time when I have an intuition about something there are forms of data I can check. Statistics, corporate reports, scientific research, whether authorities in a given field think my intuition is retarded etc.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> For ENTJ: Always check your intuition with facts.
> 
> For INTJ: Always check your intuition with facts.
> 
> ...


I fixed the above for you since all four types use facts. Sorry, Te users do not have a monopoly on using facts. Maybe you should recheck your information :wink: And @ the OP, it's a matter of trial and error. First you have to learn to be aware of your intuition in the first place, which was a problem for me, then you have to try it out sometimes and see where it leads. You'll find yourself trusting it more and more as time goes by.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Arya said:


> I fixed the above for you since all four types use facts. Sorry, Te users do not have a monopoly on using facts. Maybe you should recheck your information :wink: And @ the OP, it's a matter of trial and error. First you have to learn to be aware of your intuition in the first place, which was a problem for me, then you have to try it out sometimes and see where it leads. You'll find yourself trusting it more and more as time goes by.


What's funny is these guys never even defined what they mean by intuition because it doesn't sound like the MBTI description at all. I think they are treating it as wild guessing .


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Surreal Snake said:


> There is no logic in intuition it is irrational. But check if it makes you feel better.


Can you please define what you mean by intuition?


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Bugs said:


> What's funny is these guys never even defined what they mean by intuition because it doesn't sound like the MBTI description at all. I think they are treating it as wild guessing .


yeah sounds way more like gut instinct than Ne or Ni. The OP is a type five and cerebral types struggle with their gut instincts. Ne to me is a bit different. It just comes up with various theories based upon info and then I use Ti to narrow it down to the most likely one. But as a type six, I can understand the struggle with gut instincts.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Arya said:


> yeah sounds way more like gut instinct than Ne or Ni. The OP is a type five and cerebral types struggle with their gut instincts. Ne to me is a bit different. It just comes up with various theories based upon info and then I use Ti to narrow it down to the most likely one. But as a type six, I can understand the struggle with gut instincts.


I kind of use NeTi like that but Ti is more about what's true and what's not. I use Ne to perceive information about the outside objective world and recognize patterns then Ti to judge whether it is a valid concept or not. I notice quite a few people , mostly sensors and Te judgers confuse intuition with 'wild guessing' and 'gut instinct'


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Bugs said:


> I kind of use NeTi like that but Ti is more about what's true and what's not. I use Ne to perceive information about the outside objective world and recognize patterns then Ti to judge whether it is a valid concept or not. I notice quite a few people , mostly sensors and Te judgers confuse intuition with 'wild guessing' and 'gut instinct'


I don't disagree with what you are saying about Ti exactly. But Ti is less concerned with how true it is, but whether it is logically consistent within the framework you are arguing in. The framework itself could be total bullshit. I haven't noticed that with Te users or sensors. Sensing and intuition are truly just two ways of picking up data around you, which is why I laugh when Te users think they have a monopoly on data. Te is a way of judging the data, just as much as Ti or Fe or Fi is. But I digress. I do agree. Just haven't noticed that with sensors or Te users. It seems a common misconception in general.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Arya said:


> I fixed the above for you since all four types use facts. Sorry, Te users do not have a monopoly on using facts. Maybe you should recheck your information :wink: And @ the OP, it's a matter of trial and error. First you have to learn to be aware of your intuition in the first place, which was a problem for me, then you have to try it out sometimes and see where it leads. You'll find yourself trusting it more and more as time goes by.


Ti users tend to be much more skilled at discounting facts that do not fit their internal systems. It can be a boon (Einstein) or a negative consequence (Conspiracy theorists).


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> Ti users tend to be much more skilled at discounting facts that do not fit their internal systems. It can be a boon (Einstein) or a negative consequence (Conspiracy theorists).


You just don't understand the Ti brain. We tend to pick apart one system at a time and then move onto the next. We'll look at what doesn't fit into one system and then move onto another one. Never trust an argument with a Ti type. they probably don't believe half of what they're arguing for. I've yet to meet an INTP or ENTP that had a very solid internal system. They'll play devil's advocate with you all day. And you also can't tell me all "conspiracy theorists" are Ti types. Alex Jones, for instance is a clear ENTJ. And he's a huge "conspiracy theorist" within the US. Whatever that term means to you anyways.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Arya said:


> I don't disagree with what you are saying about Ti exactly. But Ti is less concerned with how true it is, but whether it is logically consistent within the framework you are arguing in. The framework itself could be total bullshit. I haven't noticed that with Te users or sensors. Sensing and intuition are truly just two ways of picking up data around you, which is why I laugh when Te users think they have a monopoly on data. Te is a way of judging the data, just as much as Ti or Fe or Fi is. But I digress. I do agree. Just haven't noticed that with sensors or Te users. It seems a common misconception in general.


We agree. Fact was the incorrect terminology. Logical consistency is a much better descriptor. I try to shy away from saying 'Te users' or even try to segregate sensors as if they are the only ones that use those functions. All of us use all 8 functions to one degree or another or else you wouldn't even be able to drive to work . An ENTP or INTP like us do not have an exclusive monopoly on Ne and Ti its just that we are the most adept users of it and most likely to use it as a preference. I use sensing and Te everyday and our work environment wouldn't be successful without some of our sensor and Te doms ( as well as Js) contributing their strengths


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Scelerat said:


> Ti users tend to be much more skilled at discounting facts that do not fit their internal systems. It can be a boon (Einstein) or a negative consequence (Conspiracy theorists).


Sort of but N does this more. Ti checks if an idea is logically consistent but yes the concept itself could be grounded in something not in reality. Ne tends to connect patterns in the outside objective world where Ni is more prone conspiracy theory.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I understand and relate to what your saying.

I often have ignored my intuition when I was younger, not because I didn't trust my own logic so much, but because I still wanted to go thru the experience. If I listened to my intuition I wouldn't have had nearly as much colorful experience in life of good and bad. I guess I wouldn't suggest doing as much stupid things as I have. But trying to find a balance. Its already there your just doubting it because you don't like putting things in definitives. I have found it easier as I get older to find confidence in more of my reasoning and am able to reason most things as putting them in definitives for myself (it doesn't mean you can't adjust accordingly, your not resolving to absolutes, your empowering yourself). 

I like this song your question made me think of it...


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Arya said:


> You just don't understand the Ti brain. We tend to pick apart one system at a time and then move onto the next. We'll look at what doesn't fit into one system and then move onto another one. Never trust an argument with a Ti type. they probably don't believe half of what they're arguing for. I've yet to meet an INTP or ENTP that had a very solid internal system. They'll play devil's advocate with you all day. And you also can't tell me all "conspiracy theorists" are Ti types. Alex Jones, for instance is a clear ENTJ. And he's a huge "conspiracy theorist" within the US. Whatever that term means to you anyways.


ENTPs will never believe in the 'full proof' plan or that everything is 'figured out' because we are dominant perceivers. Our perceiving is external as well so there can always be ( and often is) new information from outside reality that can drastically impact and change the plan which means we have to rethink some prior conclusions.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Bugs said:


> ENTPs will never believe in the 'full proof' plan or that everything is 'figured out' because we are dominant perceivers. Our perceiving is external as well so there can always be ( and often is) new information from outside reality that can drastically impact and change the plan which means we have to rethink some prior conclusions.



Yes, I'd say I'm mostly the same. And I've argued with ENTPs enough to know that they make up stuff as they go half the time, and then the next day they argue for the exact opposite.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Arya said:


> Yes, I'd say I'm mostly the same. And I've argued with ENTPs enough to know that they make up stuff as they go half the time, and then the next day they argue for the exact opposite.


LOL. There is a certain appeal to challenge people who are so deep trenched in a belief. That' mini Socrates in us wants to come out and troll . I've noticed its also really easy to get INTPs to chase red herrings


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

And also @Scelerat I'm not the one using vague terminology and unproven statements right now. Einstein's type is not a fact. It is a theory that seems plausible. Conspiracy theorist is a vague term that could mean anything to anybody. Arguing within the realm of MBTI is an area without solid facts. I could be mistyped. You could be mistyped. You're jumping to conclusions within an area that is still being explored.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Bugs said:


> LOL. There is a certain appeal to challenge people who are so deep trenched in a belief. That' mini Socrates in us wants to come out and troll . I've noticed its also really easy to get INTPs to chase red herrings


But we like chasing red herrings. We just use you guys as our source of entertainment. :wink:


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Arya said:


> But we like chasing red herrings. We just use you guys as our source of entertainment. :wink:


INTP... Like the sibling we have , kind of don't like but like at the same time. Would definitely troll them .


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Bugs said:


> INTP... Like the sibling we have , kind of don't like but like at the same time. Would definitely troll them .


Trolls confuse their brilliance in manipulation with most types, as doing the same with an INTP, INTP isn't chasing because they can't see the illusion, they just need to get slapped in the head with the answer. (good or bad), curiosity. I have to go further with trolls because I have to see where it leads.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Arya said:


> Never trust an argument with a Ti type. they probably don't believe half of what they're arguing for. I've yet to meet an INTP or ENTP that had a very solid internal system. They'll play devil's advocate with you all day.


I have been like this, but honestly I think it was more common when I was younger. And I do sometimes do it when I go on debate forums, but its not actually because I don't have a stance, I just tend to think sometimes when you play devils advocate on a debate forum you can actually enhance your very case it just might take a few steps to get there. So there for not really playing devils advocate underneath, but at the surface yes.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> Trolls confuse their brilliance in manipulation with most types, as doing the same with an INTP, INTP isn't chasing because they can't see the illusion, they just need to get slapped in the head with the answer. (good or bad), curiosity. I have to go further with trolls because I have to see where it leads.


To us the answer isn't always as important as the process in which the answer was obtained . Yes I know its semantics in some ways but its fun to see how people think and why they think a certain way. I find INTPs some of the most entertaining types to troll ( not in a bad way) because it often leads to enlightening discussions .


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I have been like this, but honestly I think it was more common when I was younger. And I do sometimes do it when I go on debate forums, but its not actually because I don't have a stance, I just tend to think sometimes when you play devils advocate on a debate forum you can actually enhance your very case it just might take a few steps to get there. So there for not really playing devils advocate underneath, but at the surface yes.


Socratic method


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Bugs said:


> To us the answer isn't always as important as the process in which the answer was obtained . Yes I know its semantics in some ways but its fun to see how people think and why they think a certain way. I find INTPs some of the most entertaining types to troll ( not in a bad way) because it often leads to enlightening discussions .


I usually like skilled trolls that are not cruel.

I have met some very good ones over the years.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I usually like skilled trolls that are not cruel.
> 
> I have met some very good ones over the years.


All NT types have a troll within themselves I feel.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Bugs said:


> All NT types have a troll within themselves I feel.


I think your right for sure, your reference to the socratic method for example is trolling. 

I think when an ENTP is noted for it, its because they do it in such well thought production form. (I actually have tracked some great trolls on other forums and watched them "play", I pride myself on my creative abilities in production (its a lot of my job), but I cannot fathom the process they go thru to go into such elaborate well thought schemes. I actually think that yours bugs bunny avatar and aha's sum it up well. You guys are pretty neat to study.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Cinnamon83 said:


> I think your right for sure, your reference to the socratic method for example is trolling.
> 
> I think when an ENTP is noted for it, its because they do it in such well thought production form. (I actually have tracked some great trolls on other forums and watched them "play", I pride myself on my creative abilities in production (its a lot of my job), but I cannot fathom the process they go thru to go into such elaborate well thought schemes. I actually think that yours bugs bunny avatar and aha's sum it up well. You guys are pretty neat to study.


* bows * Thank you, I think. One of my 'inner circle' or close friends is an INTP and he's actually a great troll , at least for 1 on 1 conversation. Maybe what makes ENTP humor/trolling so effective is that it's not well thought out most of the time. It's mostly reacting and adapting. It's really just operating on wit and letting Ne make connections between seemingly unrelated concepts making a person go 'huh? Didn't think of it that way'. If its not taken seriously then its really funny. Sometimes its just dumb .


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Arya said:


> You just don't understand the Ti brain. We tend to pick apart one system at a time and then move onto the next. We'll look at what doesn't fit into one system and then move onto another one. Never trust an argument with a Ti type. they probably don't believe half of what they're arguing for. I've yet to meet an INTP or ENTP that had a very solid internal system. They'll play devil's advocate with you all day. And you also can't tell me all "conspiracy theorists" are Ti types. Alex Jones, for instance is a clear ENTJ. And he's a huge "conspiracy theorist" within the US. Whatever that term means to you anyways.





Arya said:


> And also @_Scelerat_ I'm not the one using vague terminology and unproven statements right now. Einstein's type is not a fact. It is a theory that seems plausible. Conspiracy theorist is a vague term that could mean anything to anybody. Arguing within the realm of MBTI is an area without solid facts. I could be mistyped. You could be mistyped. You're jumping to conclusions within an area that is still being explored.


The Einstein vs Conspiracy theory was just an example of "discounting existing theory/facts to create something positive" vs "discounting existing theory/facts to create something pointless". If Einstein had accepted what was accepted as scientific facts of his day, he could never have come up with the theory of relativity. 

Your argument to me was much more entrenched in type theory than mine was. I merely put forth that in type theory since Extraverted Thinking tends to be referred to as among other things "oriented towards outer logical consistency", "Facts" and "Scientism" where Introverted Thinking is more oriented towards "Inner logical consistency", "Pure logic" and "Rationalism", then it follows that checking with external facts would come more naturally to a Te user than a Ti user. 

Basically:

Ti = Logic > Facts.
Te = Facts > Logic. 

If you could be mistyped, then an entire post dedicated to explaining the "Ti brain" and unproven statements seems rather strange. I'll get ahead of where this argument will end and say "MBTI may not exist, we may not exist, the world may not exist, the only thing we know that exists is within our own mind, therefore seeking adherence to any outer logical framework is pointless"

I also never made an argument that "All conspiracy theorists are Ti types" that would be too easy an argument to demolish, which I suspect is why you brought it up. 

Then again, per your own argument, Alex Jones could be mistyped and MBTI does lack a bit in terms of "solid facts". 

How do you propose we proceed with type then as there are not enough facts? 

I'll be the first to admit that "Research methods of psychology" do leave something to be desired. I think Robert Hare's research on psychopathy is the best example.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Scelerat said:


> The Einstein vs Conspiracy theory was just an example of "discounting existing theory/facts to create something positive" vs "discounting existing theory/facts to create something pointless". If Einstein had accepted what was accepted as scientific facts of his day, he could never have come up with the theory of relativity.
> 
> Your argument to me was much more entrenched in type theory than mine was. I merely put forth that in type theory since Extraverted Thinking tends to be referred to as among other things "oriented towards outer logical consistency", "Facts" and "Scientism" where Introverted Thinking is more oriented towards "Inner logical consistency", "Pure logic" and "Rationalism", then it follows that checking with external facts would come more naturally to a Te user than a Ti user.
> 
> ...


You do realize facts can be misinterpreted?

Objective facts cannot be disputed of course. But how they are connected with each other can be and this requires Ti. Example : Sky is blue ( fact) , Nitrogen absorbs all light but reflects blue ( fact) , therefore the sky is made of mostly nitrogen ( It logically follows but can be disputed until confirmed). We all use Ti whether its dom or not , we can reason a rational conclusion based on objective facts about the sky , blue light , and nitrogen. Empiricism and Rationalism work in tandem for most accurate results. On the same token I can reason to you that squared circles can't logically exist. You don't need to gather empirical data from all nooks and crannies in the universe to know this.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Bugs said:


> You do realize facts can be misinterpreted?


That was part of the grounds for the entire Kuhn-Polanyi debate. Logic can also be flawed, it can be valid but not sound, and both sound and valid. At some point, everything can be reduced to a belief in something. It's something I picked up from being near professional level in debates on religion. 

For instance, you can put an arsenal of facts and logic to a believer in religion, and they will still view the religion as being correct. We've seen this on different levels throughout history. Galileo tends to be my "go to" example. His conclusions were both factually accurate and the logical conclusion drawn from them was logically sound, yet he was tortured for heresy and forced to recant. 

I have a Hawking quote on my wall that I like a lot:

"If ever a new observation is found to disagree [with a theory], we have to abandon or modify the theory. At least that is what is supposed to happen, but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation."

Per my beliefs, it's better to start with facts http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
then move on to logic, than to start with logic, then move onto facts. Then again, solipsism will always be an option, you can always questions such as "Is causality a fact, or dependent on the observer"? 

However, if every discussion we ever have with someone is done in the same manner Spinoza does in Ethics, we're going to be here for a long time. On top of that, even with the rigid structure Spinoza does use, we can still challenge a lot of his premises.

And just for the hell of it, since you brought up circles, squares and I've been drinking: 

I prefer putting squares into circles due to the sick sides to me, hex a gun, and turn them into parallels of gram. Try angles but they may not be congruent, but since I'm both regular and complex, I'll punch their chest til it's concave and their face until convexed.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> The Einstein vs Conspiracy theory was just an example of "discounting existing theory/facts to create something positive" vs "discounting existing theory/facts to create something pointless". If Einstein had accepted what was accepted as scientific facts of his day, he could never have come up with the theory of relativity.
> 
> Your argument to me was much more entrenched in type theory than mine was. I merely put forth that in type theory since Extraverted Thinking tends to be referred to as among other things "oriented towards outer logical consistency", "Facts" and "Scientism" where Introverted Thinking is more oriented towards "Inner logical consistency", "Pure logic" and "Rationalism", then it follows that checking with external facts would come more naturally to a Te user than a Ti user.
> 
> ...


"If you could be mistyped, then an entire post dedicated to explaining the "Ti brain" and unproven statements seems rather strange. I'll get ahead of where this argument will end and say "MBTI may not exist, we may not exist, the world may not exist, the only thing we know that exists is within our own mind, therefore seeking adherence to any outer logical framework is pointless"

I also never made an argument that "All conspiracy theorists are Ti types" that would be too easy an argument to demolish, which I suspect is why you brought it up. 

Then again, per your own argument, Alex Jones could be mistyped and MBTI does lack a bit in terms of "solid facts". 

How do you propose we proceed with type then as there are not enough facts? 

I'll be the first to admit that "Research methods of psychology" do leave something to be desired. I think Robert Hare's research on psychopathy is the best example."

That is exactly what I meant by their internal frame work being very unsolid. In fact, all of those ideas occured to me while writing what I said. I just didn't feel like typing out all of them. This is why I argue one framework to the next. If I'm arguing under the idea that I'm an INTP, I have to make arguments consistent to that idea. At the same time, I have the idea in the back of my head that I could be completely wrong. So then I move to framework B, whatever that is. I can compare them and decide that INTP framework makes most sense for the time being, while also scanning around for new information which is where Ne comes in. It is very aware of data in the external environment. And I'm going to assume by Ti user we are talking about Ti dominant types, since ENTPs are very externally aware. So I would write it out as Tiata produced by Ne> logic> best possible scenario from data for time being


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Scelerat said:


> That was part of the grounds for the entire Kuhn-Polanyi debate. Logic can also be flawed, it can be valid but not sound, and both sound and valid. At some point, everything can be reduced to a belief in something. It's something I picked up from being near professional level in debates on religion.
> 
> For instance, you can put an arsenal of facts and logic to a believer in religion, and they will still view the religion as being correct. We've seen this on different levels throughout history. Galileo tends to be my "go to" example. His conclusions were both factually accurate and the logical conclusion drawn from them was logically sound, yet he was tortured for heresy and forced to recant.
> 
> ...



I added more to my comment. I realized what I wrote isn't really saying anything. Good post.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Arya said:


> That is exactly what I meant by their internal frame work being very unsolid. In fact, all of those ideas occured to me while writing what I said. I just didn't feel like typing out all of them. This is why I argue one framework to the next. If I'm arguing under the idea that I'm an INTP, I have to make arguments consistent to that idea. At the same time, I have the idea in the back of my head that I could be completely wrong. So then I move to framework B, whatever that is. I can compare them and decide that INTP framework makes most sense for the time being, while also scanning around for new information which is where Ne comes in. It is very aware of data in the external environment. And I'm going to assume by Ti user we are talking about Ti dominant types, since ENTPs are very externally aware. So I would write it out as Tiata produced by Ne> logic> best possible scenario from data for time being


That's the difference then, I argue from the basis of "This external framework is correct"


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Bugs said:


> I added more to my comment. I realized what I wrote isn't really saying anything. Good post.


I added more to mine too, but it's not on topic.


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

K


GYX_Kid said:


> So basically, I always test INTP and I tend to overthink/overcomplicate everything. I notice the fine details, and am quick to see logic where it can apply.
> 
> A potential weakness (or misuse of an additional strength) is when I get an intuition about something, yet fail to realize the logic in following it. (A "feeling" or "voice inside my head" can be dismissed as irrational, right?) Not necessarily.
> 
> ...


I've learned to completely trust my intuition on things I know a great deal about and have a lot of experience with and to question it when I run into unfamiliar territory. I'll fact check extensively on those things I'm not familiar with but run with intuition on those I am. Works very well for me.


----------

