# Trans Contextual Thinking: ENTP, ENFP, INTP, INFP - Thoughts?



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> The research is there.


This very limited research produced more questions than answers (none of which are as conclusive as they are presented)
And I don't see any research on this trans-contextual bullshit specifically, yet all psychology junk sites were very quick to swallow that, obviously.
People love attaching all kinds of nonsense stories to their identities to feel better about themselves and someone has to provide that. But this only obscures the truth.

TCT is described as something that I and many other people are doing all the time. In what way is it a "special talent" then?
Neurologists to my knowledge don't use this "Christmas Tree Brain" term, it all roots back again to work of Nardi at best.
There are still many unresolved issues with linking psychological functions with the patterns of brain activity and abilities that are genetic to a large context.

Have you bothered to read this research yourself btw?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> This very limited research produced more questions than answers (none of which are as conclusive as they are presented)
> And I don't see any research on this trans-contextual bullshit specifically, yet all psychology junk sites were very quick to swallow that, obviously.
> People love attaching all kinds of nonsense stories to their identities to feel better about themselves and someone has to provide that. But this only obscures the truth.
> 
> ...


Of course I read it. Did you? They lay out the basics of the experiment. They tested a number of people of various types and used an EEG to determine which parts of the brain lit up when they solved a set of control questions.

Trans-contextual thinking makes sense given how Ne users can put together unconventional ideas together and see patterns that others miss. It isn't about being a "snowflake," it is about describing a process that makes sense to me.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Here is some webpage that speak a lot about web thinking if anyone is interested 


The First Sex


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

Its a bit outdated when it comes to childrens full development of the prefrontal cortex, mind you.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Your Myers-Briggs® Personality Type and Your Brain


Discover the science behind your Myers-Briggs personality type. Learn how each type uses their brain in different ways.



www.psychologyjunkie.com


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Your Myers-Briggs® Personality Type and Your Brain
> 
> 
> Discover the science behind your Myers-Briggs personality type. Learn how each type uses their brain in different ways.
> ...


Heh, I once had the honor of meeting Dario in a youtube video 😆 it was very interesting 😃


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

This explains why my favorite type is ENFP, I laugh my ass off relating nonsense xD.



tanstaafl28 said:


> Of course I read it. Did you? They lay out the basics of the experiment. They tested a number of people of various types and used an EEG to determine which parts of the brain lit up when they solved a set of control questions.
> 
> Trans-contextual thinking makes sense given how Ne users can put together unconventional ideas together and see patterns that others miss. It isn't about being a "snowflake," it is about describing a process that makes sense to me.


yeah.


Electra said:


> I have a lot of this kind of thinking, I think it's a huge part of my ADD. Its usually what happens when I space out, I associate a lot.
> Here is a piece of info from Helen Fishers book.
> (Negotiators are Myers Briggs Feelers and Builders are Myers Briggs SJ's)
> 
> ...


You reminded me of certain Persian, Indian, etc. beliefs.

I wonder if people who function like this can turn off/on this function .... as clearly having it always on is quite exhausting.

It made me want to practice meditation.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

superloco3000 said:


> This explains why my favorite type is ENFP, I laugh my ass off relating nonsense xD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No we can't. I recommand mindfullness, ritalin, cbt, melatonin and full body relaxation meditation with proper deep breathing.


----------



## superloco3000 (Dec 15, 2017)

Electra said:


> No we can't. I recommand mindfullness, ritalin, cbt, melatonin and full body relaxation meditation with proper deep breathing.


I am more intrigued xD.
Is there a difference between E vs T in this context ... in those mental collages, how do the emotions work?

I have had mild depression, and emotions are the hardest thing to deal with ... Even small emotional traumas are difficult to assimilate.

Honestly playing instruments is the only thing that has made my brain stop working and the subconscious come out.... well that's a lie, getting drunk and criticizing the creator of the universe has done that too xD.

I believe that humans can take control of the mind, maybe the next evolution will be like that.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

*ENTP Brain Activity*

People with the ENTP personality type show 48% of their pre-frontal activity on the left side of their brain, and 52% of their pre-frontal activity on the right side of their brain. Like ENFPs, ENTPs are known for their “Christmas tree” brain pattern. This pattern is called trans-contextual thinking. In this pattern, the neocortex is active all over, and each region has a high amplitude and is out-of-synch with the others. Each region is processing information and working to generate a creative, surprise result. While most personality types focus on particular brain regions to answer certain questions, ENTPs use trans-contextual thinking to include brain regions that seem to be unrelated to the question at hand. However, this helps them to discover unusual relationships between situations. Nardi explains this in his book The Neuroscience of Personality; _“Most people, hearing the words “dog” and “cat” will evoke auditory regions like T3 and perhaps some visual or memory regions like O1 or C3….However, the Ne types get busy using all regions …perhaps suddenly imagining a story about two brothers, one of whom is faithful and sociable (like a dog) while the other is independent and quiet (like a cat). They might wonder about dog and cat writing styles too!”_

Trans-contextual thinking is extremely energy-intensive, and ENTPs tend to experience very creative highs and also very strong lows as well. Because they bounce back and forth between so many different brain regions it can be natural for them to be mentally worn out at times. They may see so many sides to a situation or scenario that they find it hard to settle on one clear point.

ENTPs rely strongly on the right parietal region. This region acts like a visual-spatial sketch pad. It is in charge of facial decoding, integration with the environment, spatial memory, non-verbal reasoning, and weighing numerous pros and cons of many uncertain factors before arriving at a single result. ENTPs use this region most out of any of the other personality types.

*ENFP Brain Activity*

People with the ENFP personality type show 48% of their pre-frontal activity on the left side of their brain, and 52% of their pre-frontal activity on the right side of their brain. ENFPs (and ENTPs) are known for using a process called trans-contextual thinking. Whenever a stimulus enters the brain, the ENFP responds by quickly processing the stimulus in numerous regions, including regions that have nothing to do with the stimulus. Nardi says in his book The Neuroscience of Personality _“for most people, hearing the word “dog” and “cat” will evoke auditory regions like T3 and perhaps some visual or memory regions like O1 and C3….However, the Ne types get busy using all regions to tap relationships across situations, perhaps suddenly imagining a story about two brothers, one of whom is faithful and sociable (like a dog) while the other is independent and quiet (like a cat). They might wonder about dog and cat writing styles as well.”_

ENFPs also show high activity in frontal region F7. F7 thinks about context, is concerned with verbal expression, speech fluency, mood regulation, empathy, and assessing the intentions of others. Some people call this the “frontal mirror neuron system”. This amazing region not only gives ENFPs their signature empathy, but it also helps them to think across contexts to create fast, creative responses. Activities that stimulate the ENFP would include engaging in “what-if” questions, playing word games, or analyzing ambiguous meanings. Most feeling types tend to show more activity in this region.

Brain regions that support imagination are used intensely by ENFPs and can explain why they are often drawn to career fields in the arts. They also show activity in the right and left temporal lobes that handle language, including verbal memory, emotional non-verbal memory, and phonological processing. They are very careful about the words they use and think carefully about timing and delivery so that they can get the desired impact.

ENFPs may struggle with entering a “zone” state. They tend to have to practice at something for a long time before they can find “flow”. Once they become proficient at an activity for a long time, they can find this state by envisioning themselves doing something they are especially good at.











Your Myers-Briggs® Personality Type and Your Brain


Discover the science behind your Myers-Briggs personality type. Learn how each type uses their brain in different ways.



www.psychologyjunkie.com


----------



## victorcorcos (10 mo ago)

tanstaafl28 said:


> *Trans*-*contextual thinking* is the ability to create connections in the mind between things or ideas that aren't typically associated with each other in a particular context. This is a special talent of types who use Extraverted iNtuition, particularly ENFP and *ENTP*, but also INFP and INTP. Neurologists call this: "Christmas Tree Brain."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





tanstaafl28 said:


> *Trans*-*contextual thinking* is the ability to create connections in the mind between things or ideas that aren't typically associated with each other in a particular context. This is a special talent of types who use Extraverted iNtuition, particularly ENFP and *ENTP*, but also INFP and INTP. Neurologists call this: "Christmas Tree Brain."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is so *ME*.
I use a lot of Trans-Contextual Thinking in my life, lol.

Making analogies inside my mind of completely different contexts in order to learn something or in order to just have fun doing it, because it is funny xD

I remember I was talking with my INTJ friend and we first related *Bubbles in the Water* to *Black Holes*.
Then I related both of these things to social manipulation by the politicians on the society and he was like: "*WTF???????*"


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Whippit said:


> I didn't think I had this, except for that when I just naturally start talking freely often people start looking confused, and I tend to lose them. This is a talent?


I lose them too. Very few people appreciate it, so I learned long ago to keep my mouth shut. 

In support groups where "sharing" is encouraged, I try to follow the script. For example, if the topic is Anger, people might talk about a work incident. But if I talk about a work incident that made me angry, I'm accused of speaking off topic. I haven't been able to figure out why. 

However, this kind of thinking is handy for figuring out creative solutions to problems. On my own.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Nardi assumes he can map EEG activity to specific processes and then relate them to personality type, as if these processes have been unequivocally neurologically defined for comparison. Yet, in _real _neuroscience, where terms like "trans-contextual thinking" (divergent thinking?) and "christmas tree brain" don't exist, the research into how neural activity relates to complex and multi-faceted behaviors like creative thinking is much more involved and debated, and he'd do well to actually link his work to more established findings in neuroscience (not pop neuropsychology) in order to differentiate the relevance of his findings.

A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. - PsycNET (apa.org) 



> Creativity is a cornerstone of what makes us human, yet the neural mechanisms underlying creative thinking are poorly understood. A recent surge of interest into the neural underpinnings of creative behavior has produced a banquet of data that is tantalizing but, considered as a whole, deeply self-contradictory. We review the emerging literature and take stock of several long-standing theories and widely held beliefs about creativity. A total of 72 experiments, reported in 63 articles, make up the core of the review. They broadly fall into 3 categories: divergent thinking, artistic creativity, and insight. *Electroencephalographic studies of divergent thinking yield highly variegated results. Neuroimaging studies of this paradigm also indicate no reliable changes above and beyond diffuse prefrontal activation. These findings call into question the usefulness of the divergent thinking construct in the search for the neural basis of creativity.* A similarly inconclusive picture emerges for studies of artistic performance, except that this paradigm also often yields activation of motor and temporoparietal regions. Neuroelectric and imaging studies of insight are more consistent, reflecting changes in anterior cingulate cortex and prefrontal areas. *Taken together, creative thinking does not appear to critically depend on any single mental process or brain region, and it is not especially associated with right brains, defocused attention, low arousal, or alpha synchronization, as sometimes hypothesized. To make creativity tractable in the brain, it must be further subdivided into different types that can be meaningfully associated with specific neurocognitive processes.*


Then you have to ask whether or not Nardi's interpretation of cognitive functions is useful, like claiming ENFPs are more empathetic or even that Ne uniquely engages in "the ability to create connections in the mind between things or ideas that aren’t typically associated with each other in a particular context."

That assessment seems to be purely based on a shallow interpretation of Jung's suggestion that Ne seeks "possibilities." The folly of that association might be more apparent if you change the word "possibilities" to "opportunities." Ne _chases opportunities _of an abstract nature - honestly one of the most future-oriented types, even though for some reason INTJ gets that hat in stereotypes. Ne could just as easily use convergent thinking (top-down) on whatever has captured attention. Jung describes Ne as obsessive, high in energy, and objectively focused.

From _Psychological Types:_



> He is the natural advocate of every minority that holds the seed of future promise. Because of his capacity, when orientated more towards men than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and range of usefulness, he can also 'make' men. His capacity to inspire his fellow-men with courage, or to kindle enthusiasm for something new, is unrivalled, although he may have forsworn it by the morrow. The more powerful and vivid his intuition, the more is his subject fused and blended with the divined possibility. He animates it; he presents it in plastic shape and with convincing fire; he almost embodies it. It is not a mere histrionic display, but a fate.


Thomas Edison is a great example of an Ne-dom:

Peek Inside Thomas Edison's Creative Journals (NEW BOOK) | HuffPost Entertainment 



> Edison stands out as an innovator, not because he always succeeded, but because of the scope and range of his interests. His ability to pursue research in diverse fields and draw upon past experiences to solve new problems were among his biggest strengths. The cubbyhole in his West Orange laboratory desk marked “New Things” reminds us of his irrepressible interest in the next big idea. If he were alive today, he would be on the cutting edge of innovation.


His prolific invention and focus on "possibility" are not necessarily intrinsic to divergent or unrelated associations. Does the difference make sense?

Though, based on descriptive characteristics, my impression is that divergent thinking is an exercise for an extraverted orientation, while convergent thinking is an exercise for an introverted orientation (both seem to be important methods for a creative approach to a problem).


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> This very limited research produced more questions than answers (none of which are as conclusive as they are presented)
> And I don't see any research on this trans-contextual bullshit specifically, yet all psychology junk sites were very quick to swallow that, obviously.
> People love attaching all kinds of nonsense stories to their identities to feel better about themselves and someone has to provide that. But this only obscures the truth.
> 
> ...


The best research always produces more questions than answers. Certitude is only ever one discovery away from becoming more or less certain. 

I don't present this as some sort of unique "super power" but just the facet of how people use Ne, whether dominant or not. I never meant to imply that any personality type has any advantage over another. Having this skill makes us short-sighted in other ways. Believe me, I'm very aware of our many faults as well. We're better at getting the ball rolling than we are at finishing the job. This is just an example of a very unique thought process that might lead to other discoveries. I have long believed that it is only through diversity of thought that we have made it to where we are today. People with strong Ne are often catalysts, but they cannot fully develop what they conceive of without assistance from others. I am of the opinion that everyone has something to contribute.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Squirt said:


> Nardi assumes he can map EEG activity to specific processes and then relate them to personality type, as if these processes have been unequivocally neurologically defined for comparison. Yet, in _real _neuroscience, where terms like "trans-contextual thinking" (divergent thinking?) and "christmas tree brain" don't exist, the research into how neural activity relates to complex and multi-faceted behaviors like creative thinking is much more involved and debated, and he'd do well to actually link his work to more established findings in neuroscience (not pop neuropsychology) in order to differentiate the relevance of his findings.
> 
> A review of EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies of creativity and insight. - PsycNET (apa.org)
> 
> ...


It does to me. Edison needed others to help him realize his visions. He came up with the basic principles and then his assistants would often flesh things out. This is exactly how ENTPs work. We're great at coming up with the big picture concepts but not as skilled with the finer details. We initiate, but we aren't always the best suited for finishing what we started. There's a lot of ideas Edison had that went nowhere; some completely flopped. Somewhere in New Jersey there's a bunch of talking dolls with miniature phonographs in them buried for all eternity, because they couldn't find a way to keep the recording cylinders from warping or breaking over time, which made the dolls sound super creepy, or not speak at all. Nobody wants a creepy sounding doll, it seems.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> It does to me. Edison needed others to help him realize his visions. He came up with the basic principles and then his assistants would often flesh things out. This is exactly how ENTPs work. We're great at coming up with the big picture concepts but not as skilled with the finer details. We initiate, but we aren't always the best suited for finishing what we started. There's a lot of ideas Edison had that went nowhere; some completely flopped. Somewhere in New Jersey there's a bunch of talking dolls with miniature phonographs in them buried for all eternity, because they couldn't find a way to keep the recording cylinders from warping or breaking over time, which made the dolls sound super creepy, or not speak at all. Nobody wants a creepy sounding doll, it seems.


Sounds like a good premise for a horror story, lol.

The willingness to try out many different (bold) ideas without getting too discouraged if it doesn’t work out is a strength of Ne.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Squirt said:


> Sounds like a good premise for a horror story, lol.
> 
> The willingness to try out many different (bold) ideas without getting too discouraged if it doesn’t work out is a strength of Ne.


I totally agree. You don't know what works or doesn't work until you try. There's that whole famous quote from Edison when he was perfecting the light bulb. 

“I have not failed 700 times. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.”

– THOMAS EDISON on inventing the light bulb.

There are, of course, several versions of this particular story, but it does prove a point. I remember as a child testing various actions and noting the outcomes as if I were a scientist of sorts. I collected a lot of empirical data. I learned there were some lines I shouldn't cross, but my curiosity, my NEED to KNOW, always drove me to tinker, explore, and push boundaries; to learn as much as I could. I am still this way. People tell me I know a lot of things. I don't really know that for myself because I'm still learning something new every single day. The acquisition of knowledge is not a end, but a means. I just can't seem to stop learning and I hope I never do.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I totally agree. You don't know what works or doesn't work until you try. There's that whole famous quote from Edison when he was perfecting the light bulb.
> 
> “I have not failed 700 times. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.”
> 
> ...


You know how Nikola Tesla (INTJ) was critical of Edison? He said, “If he [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. … Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.”

This is how I felt about Edison's approach for a long time. The problem with that is one can get so focused on finding the "right" solution, that you miss all the potentials that would only be discovered through uninhibited exploration. If Edison examines every straw, he might discover not only there was a needle in that haystack, but there were five needles and a new species of beetle. It also misses the point in that much of that exploration might be a love for haystacks, not a love for needles... or The Needle.

There is a difference between expectations on how to use energy - how Tesla claimed Edison's methods were wasteful labor while Edison saw it as worthwhile employ (well, if he paid you, lol). While Edison could just go for it - engage objects (as possibilities) directly to see what happens, Tesla was "trapped" in his mind's eye, always projecting ideas onto objects before he could engage them. It means being less prolific and varied by comparison, even if outward labor is saved. For instance, when a fire burned down Tesla's lab, it was devastating, where I don't think Edison would've lost quite as much if he were in that position (after the fire, Edison let Tesla use his workshop to get back on his feet).

Yet, there is an argument to be made about not spreading oneself so thin or spinning wheels over something that won't lead anywhere. So, both perspectives could learn from one another.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Squirt said:


> You know how Nikola Tesla (INTJ) was critical of Edison? He said, “If he [Thomas Edison] had a needle to find in a haystack, he would not stop to reason where it was most likely to be, but would proceed at once with the feverish diligence of a bee, to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. … Just a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.”
> 
> This is how I felt about Edison's approach for a long time. The problem with that is one can get so focused on finding the "right" solution, that you miss all the potentials that would only be discovered through uninhibited exploration. If Edison examines every straw, he might discover not only there was a needle in that haystack, but there were five needles and a new species of beetle. It also misses the point in that much of that exploration might be a love for haystacks, not a love for needles... or The Needle.
> 
> ...


When I was very young, I latched onto the mythological being that was Thomas Edison and marvelled at his exploits. It wasn't until I was in college that I was exposed to just how much Tesla really did to advance modern technology as we know it and how much Edison tried to derail Tesla. Edison had the advantage of following the American "rags to riches" sort of trope, whereas Tesla was a formally educated European outsider. If it weren't for George Westinghouse taking a chance on Tesla, he might never have had the kind of impact he managed to have. Edison had a much easier time getting backers (and I imagine he did his best to insure those backers looked at Tesla with suspicion). Despite all the hoopla between Edison and Tesla, they were business rivals, but they really did not hate each other. 

Edison demonstrates the potential ENTPs have for blind arrogance. He had to refine his ideas by trying everything until he hit upon what worked. That was simply how his mind was wired. The thing is he took a lot of credit for ideas he passed off to his assistants when he got bored with them or came up with something new he wanted to work on (also a very ENTP trait). Edison had more ideas than time in the day to exploit them all. Edison had blind spots. He became so heavily invested in DC that, by the time Tesla proved AC was superior for transmission of power over long distances, there was no way Edison could change gears, so he set out to prove Tesla wrong about AC when I think deep down he knew he was on the losing side of that proposition. 

Tesla, by comparison was extremely good at working out all the particulars in his head so that by the time he put something on paper, he already had it figured out almost down to the nuts and bolts. It is obvious to me that Tesla was far more inductive and Edison was very very deductive. If he had a blind spot, Tesla got lost in the intricacies of invention and forgot that part of being an inventor is cultivating a following that leads to rich men backing him. Edison never forgot where his bread was buttered and played up his popularity every chance he got. Of the two he was the better showman. I would say Tesla was the better pure inventor. 

TLDR: Edison approached problems like a scientist, and Tesla approached them like an engineer.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> When I was very young, I latched onto the mythological being that was Thomas Edison and marvelled at his exploits. It wasn't until I was in college that I was exposed to just how much Tesla really did to advance modern technology as we know it and how much Edison tried to derail Tesla. Edison had the advantage of following the American "rags to riches" sort of trope, whereas Tesla was a formally educated European outsider. If it weren't for George Westinghouse taking a chance on Tesla, he might never have had the kind of impact he managed to have. Edison had a much easier time getting backers (and I imagine he did his best to insure those backers looked at Tesla with suspicion). Despite all the hoopla between Edison and Tesla, they were business rivals, but they really did not hate each other.
> 
> Edison demonstrates the potential ENTPs have for blind arrogance. He had to refine his ideas by trying everything until he hit upon what worked. That was simply how his mind was wired. The thing is he took a lot of credit for ideas he passed off to his assistants when he got bored with them or came up with something new he wanted to work on (also a very ENTP trait). Edison had more ideas than time in the day to exploit them all. Edison had blind spots. He became so heavily invested in DC that, by the time Tesla proved AC was superior for transmission of power over long distances, there was no way Edison could change gears, so he set out to prove Tesla wrong about AC when I think deep down he knew he was on the losing side of that proposition.
> 
> ...


Yes. I find their rivalry and the advancements of that period fascinating. I read four books about Tesla and Edison before I knew anything about Jung, and after I understood Jung’s type framework it got even more interesting! A very clear example of Jung’s extraversion vs introversion conflict between two people.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> The best research always produces more questions than answers. Certitude is only ever one discovery away from becoming more or less certain.
> 
> I don't present this as some sort of unique "super power" but just the facet of how people use Ne, whether dominant or not. I never meant to imply that any personality type has any advantage over another. Having this skill makes us short-sighted in other ways. Believe me, I'm very aware of our many faults as well. We're better at getting the ball rolling than we are at finishing the job. This is just an example of a very unique thought process that might lead to other discoveries. I have long believed that it is only through diversity of thought that we have made it to where we are today. People with strong Ne are often catalysts, but they cannot fully develop what they conceive of without assistance from others. I am of the opinion that everyone has something to contribute.


We don't agree on what "Ne" is. This always must be kept in mind whenever it gets factored into the discussion between us.



> I never meant to imply that any personality type has any advantage over another.


Why not, though. Each personality is a particular adaptation strategy that is optimal in a subset of contexts at the expense of being suboptimal in others, as you implied yourself.



> We're better at getting the ball rolling than we are at finishing the job.
> People with strong Ne are often catalysts, but they cannot fully develop what they conceive of without assistance from others.


In my view, there is no such personality as "lazy ass blabbermouth." A personality that entails laziness/inability to stay focused on the job as a feature should be considered dysfunctional and treated as pathology/maladaptation.
All too frequently, I see "Ne" being used as an excuse-generating and responsibility-shifting device for all kinds of ridiculous and immature reasons.


----------



## victorcorcos (10 mo ago)

There are discussions wether Edison is *ESTP* or *ENTP* out there and you guys provided some nice arguments for *ENTP*.

In my opinion, I don't see he being Se-Ni, instead of focusing in one idea and it's accomplishment, he was constantly looking for new ideas, potentials, novelties. Ne users see potentials everywhere.

There are a lot of ideas Edison had that went nowhere; some completely flopped. Somewhere in New Jersey there's a bunch of talking dolls with miniature phonographs in them buried for all eternity, because they couldn't find a way to keep the recording cylinders from warping or breaking over time, which made the dolls sound super creepy, or not speak at all. Nobody wants a creepy sounding doll, it seems.

Not only were his ideas seeking for variety, but so were his own interests. It was how he worked.

"Edison stands out as an innovator, not because he always succeeded, but because of the scope and range of his interests. His ability to pursue research in diverse fields and draw upon past experiences to solve new problems were among his biggest strengths. The cubbyhole in his West Orange laboratory desk marked “New Things” reminds us of his irrepressible interest in the next big idea. If he were alive today, he would be on the cutting edge of innovation."
~ 7 Epic Fails Brought to You By the Genius Mind of Thomas Edison

Maybe a lot of people is voting him for Se dom because Edison tries to go for ideas without planning beforehand, but Ne is not about planning after all, Ne is about seeking for possibilities, potentials, expectancies, varieties, novelties. Everything that Edison is related to.

The Extraverted Intuitive Type 💨) "Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type."
~ Carl Jung, Psychological Types

About the Tesla x Edison discussion: There is a difference between expectations on how to use energy. How Tesla claimed Edison's methods were wasteful labor while Edison saw it as worthwhile employ (well, if he paid you, lol). While Edison could just go for it - engage objects (as possibilities) directly because he saw potential and he wanted to see what happens by trying a promising possibility (*Ne*) -, Tesla was "trapped" in his mind's eye, always projecting ideas onto objects before he could engage them (*Ni*). It means being less prolific and varied by comparison, even if outward labor is saved, for example.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> We don't agree on what "Ne" is. This always must be kept in mind whenever it gets factored into the discussion between us.


I don't know that I've actually defined Ne. I would consider it a method of pattern matching that pulls from multiple sources at once. Part of it is seeking hidden meaning and attempting to assemble data in novel ways, but it goes beyond that. It is how the data is keyed, catalogued, and retrieved that seems to be the interesting aspect of the function. I suppose we store empirical data and combine it with theoretical data at some level. The problem is sorting through the information to find the useful nuggets. Sometimes this is easy, other times, it's arduous. 



> Why not, though. Each personality is a particular adaptation strategy that is optimal in a subset of contexts at the expense of being suboptimal in others, as you implied yourself.


Obviously, the base function itself is not an advantage over any other, however, each human learns to develop it according to their own potential, skills, environment, genetics, etc. There are some brilliant Ne users and there are some mediocre ones too. 



> In my view, there is no such personality as "lazy ass blabbermouth." A personality that entails laziness/inability to stay focused on the job as a feature should be considered dysfunctional and treated as pathology/maladaptation.
> All too frequently, I see "Ne" being used as an excuse-generating and responsibility-shifting device for all kinds of ridiculous and immature reasons.



It isn't so much about being lazy as it is once we've accomplished the challenge of acquiring knowledge and experience, we're already looking for something new. That's not laziness, it's novelty seeking. I've managed to survive 4 years in the military and earn two degrees, so I do know how to finish what I start, however, I've found that most of the time, it's best that I work in spurts, not all at once. When I would write a paper, I would put down the "bare bones" and set it aside for a few days, then I'd gather some research and start plugging in my evidence. Then I'd produce a rough draft and let it sit for a day or so. When I came back to it, I was ready to either rip it to shreds and start over, or buff and polish it into a finished paper with bibliography. So it's a process with me. I usually do not take a straight line from start to finish. I allow myself time to go do other things and come back to it, that's how I overcame my desire to seek novelty and lack of focus. I don't see Ne as any sort of excuse or responsibility shifting device, but I will agree that many young Ne users lack the maturity and experience to use it to its fullest potential. For most of us, it takes time and experience to properly master.


----------



## Clare_Bare (Apr 6, 2015)

tanstaafl28 said:


> *ENTP Brain Activity*
> 
> People with the ENTP personality type show 48% of their pre-frontal activity on the left side of their brain, and 52% of their pre-frontal activity on the right side of their brain.
> Like ENFPs, ENTPs are known for their “Christmas tree” brain pattern. This pattern is called trans-contextual thinking.
> ...





tanstaafl28 said:


> ENTPs rely strongly on the right parietal region. This region acts like a visual-spatial sketch pad. It is in charge of facial decoding, integration with the environment, spatial memory, non-verbal reasoning, and weighing numerous pros and cons of many uncertain factors before arriving at a single result.


And primary use of the Right Parietal Region would explain the high levels of correlation for NE types being left-handers amongst other attributes.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I don't know that I've actually defined Ne. I would consider it a method of pattern matching that pulls from multiple sources at once. Part of it is seeking hidden meaning and attempting to assemble data in novel ways, but it goes beyond that. It is how the data is keyed, catalogued, and retrieved that seems to be the interesting aspect of the function. I suppose we store empirical data and combine it with theoretical data at some level. The problem is sorting through the information to find the useful nuggets. Sometimes this is easy, other times, it's arduous.


You didn't define it, yes, but it can be derived from statements and sources that you are using. 

The problem with this view is that you are describing a method, skill, ability, or methodology. And such a method is considered in the context of its utility (produces something in novel ways, links data with theory.)
A psychological function appears to be reduced to a mere practical purpose, leading to a teleological explanation of personality while, ironically, missing its very essence. Personality becomes a particular set of practices, methods, and behaviors. And at the end, you are also saying how all of us have something to contribute, not just people with "strong Ne"

But how any of this is relevant?
People don't stop having any personality whenever they run out of things that they can contribute.
Personality doesn't have to be necessarily valuable and useful to others in order to justify its existence.
And I believe that you don't become a different person whenever you decide to apply a different method/algorithm of dealing with information.

Furthermore, It might seem a bit hard to believe, but most sensible people are capable of making and storing empirical observations. And, at the same time, these good sensible people tend to have some sort of comprehension/explanation of such data, a theory of it.

But all of this is a rather basic consequence of applying a healthy brain. And "having a brain" is not a personality.

And it goes beyond that. Most sensible people would prefer to make something new, to be creative in the ways available to them. "Being a dull, shallow person that prefers doing the same boring shit again and again like a mindless drone" is not really a valid personality either. And "providing a valuable contribution to the society" won't substitute it.

So, yeah, we don't really agree on what Ne is.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> You didn't define it, yes, but it can be derived from statements and sources that you are using.
> 
> The problem with this view is that you are describing a method, skill, ability, or methodology. And such a method is considered in the context of its utility (produces something in novel ways, links data with theory.)
> A psychological function appears to be reduced to a mere practical purpose, leading to a teleological explanation of personality while, ironically, missing its very essence. Personality becomes a particular set of practices, methods, and behaviors. And at the end, you are also saying how all of us have something to contribute, not just people with "strong Ne"
> ...



Am I begging the question by asking you to present your definition?


----------



## thedazzlingdexter (12 mo ago)

I often do this type of thing.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Am I begging the question by asking you to present your definition?


I can do that, but yeah, I would like you to address the issues that I raised first. I think that would be more helpful than introducing even more things on which we disagree.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> You didn't define it, yes, but it can be derived from statements and sources that you are using.





> The problem with this view is that you are describing a method, skill, ability, or methodology. And such a method is considered in the context of its utility (produces something in novel ways, links data with theory.)
> A psychological function appears to be reduced to a mere practical purpose, leading to a teleological explanation of personality while, ironically, missing its very essence. Personality becomes a particular set of practices, methods, and behaviors. And at the end, you are also saying how all of us have something to contribute, not just people with "strong Ne"


What is personality but a habitual set of practices unique to the individual practicing them? What else can we observe from a function but its output? 



> But how any of this is relevant?
> People don't stop having any personality whenever they run out of things that they can contribute.
> Personality doesn't have to be necessarily valuable and useful to others in order to justify its existence.
> And I believe that you don't become a different person whenever you decide to apply a different method/algorithm of dealing with information.


We use the traits we find unique to each type. There are general patterns that emerge which can be attributed to function, but each person can determine how they choose to use them. 



> Furthermore, It might seem a bit hard to believe, but most sensible people are capable of making and storing empirical observations. And, at the same time, these good sensible people tend to have some sort of comprehension/explanation of such data, a theory of it.


Of course they are, but how we arrange and express them is influenced by the means by which we receive the data and process it. A intuitive still has senses, a sensor still has intuition, it's just they prefer to use one over the other because that's how they get results that make sense to _them._ 



> But all of this is a rather basic consequence of applying a healthy brain. And "having a brain" is not a personality.


You're absolutely correct. It's how that brain prefers to organize information, process it, and express it, through decisions, actions, and words that distinguishes one from another. MBTI describes these preferred tendencies. It isn't written in stone. Every one of us is the same, but different. "Personality" is an accumulation of experience, environment, genetics, knowledge, and personal preferences, which have been reinforced by persistence of memory. 



> And it goes beyond that. Most sensible people would prefer to make something new, to be creative in the ways available to them. "Being a dull, shallow person that prefers doing the same boring shit again and again like a mindless drone" is not really a valid personality either. And "providing a valuable contribution to the society" won't substitute it.


I suspect "new" is not the operative word, but instead variations on a theme, as science builds upon the knowledge of those who came before. All of us have particular habits and routines that we use to maintain specific aspects of our lives. The amount of time we give over to "duties" varies accordingly. Some people are more rigid about it than others. Their functions and preferences keep the foundations of society functional and this purpose frees others to extend, innovate, and continue to expand the boundaries of what is known. At some fundamental level, we do have those who appear to be dull and shallow, but perform a vital function that keeps the lights on and the wheels turning. Are these contributions to society any less valuable than the physicist who discovers a new kind of matter, or the doctor who discovers a cure to a disease, or the inventor who pushes the capabilities of technology beyond what we have today? 



> So, yeah, we don't really agree on what Ne is.


That's probably a good thing. We approach theory from a different perspective based upon the distinctions I enumerated above. I am one who looks to the perspectives of others to cohese novel ways of looking at things. That's just one of the things I tend to do. I appear to have a mind for brainstorming and problem solving such, that I have repeatedly found myself in situations where those skills come in handy. At times, my mind seems to go all over the place, at others, I can perform with laser focus. Perhaps the fact that I am dominant Ne makes it difficult for me to define it because I'm too close to the fire. I don't know, but I would like to read your take on it.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> You're absolutely correct. It's how that brain prefers to organize information, process it, and express it, through decisions, actions, and words that distinguishes one from another. MBTI describes these preferred tendencies. It isn't written in stone. Every one of us is the same, but different. "Personality" is an accumulation of experience, environment, genetics, knowledge, and personal preferences, which have been reinforced by persistence of memory.


Is that really the scope of MBTI or even the term "personality"? I don't think MBTI is describing a person's entire psychology, but preferences that can be roughly sorted within it (which for the most part appear to be innate, according to Jung and Myers-Briggs). Jung especially did not describe "personalities" but "psychological types" - or _broad _characteristics of _specific _psychological tendencies (introversion/extraversion, intution/sensing, thinking/feeling). It is easier to see what a person's type might be based on the accumulation of their life trajectories, philosophies, and preferences, rather than their mundane, day-to-day decisions and actions, not because their personality _is _an accumulation, but because the patterns become more obvious the more information you have. I don't think personality alone explains a continuity of identity or of the self (which would include experience, environment, genetics, knowledge, memory, preferences, etc.)

For instance, what about when someone experiences a traumatic brain injury and undergoes "personality changes" (executive functioning deficits)? Or even a degenerative disease like dementia (loss of memory and cognitive function)? This is an interesting question because it forces an evaluation of what personality is in the first place. It also relates back to your other thread about personality and likelihood early cognitive decline. There is a relationship, clearly, but personality might be more of a _management strategy_ for cognition rather than the cognition itself?

Your personality can protect or age your brain, study finds | Personality Cafe


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

tanstaafl28 said:


> What is personality but a habitual set of practices unique to the individual practicing them? What else can we observe from a function but its output?


Well, it is patterns of cognitions, motivations, and all the other psychological factors that separate us as individuals. Something that comes before behaviors, related but not limited to them.
An output might be all that we can observe, but it is not equal to its function. Just as theory isn't a mere recollection of observations. It goes beyond them, it abstracts an underlying principle that connects the initial set of observations, and leads us to its superset.



> You're absolutely correct. It's how that brain prefers to organize information, process it, and express it, through decisions, actions, and words that distinguishes one from another. MBTI describes these preferred tendencies. It isn't written in stone. Every one of us is the same, but different. "Personality" is an accumulation of experience, environment, genetics, knowledge, and personal preferences, which have been reinforced by persistence of memory.


Again you treat personality as a set of very concrete, material elements, although with a greater variety among them.
Accumulation of them but never a vector, there is no attempt to go beyond what is observable. Do you find this perspective on personalities consistent with your own view on what Ne is?



> I suspect "new" is not the operative word, but instead variations on a theme, as science builds upon the knowledge of those who came before.


Everything relates to something else. This is how we cognize things. By recognizing already known elements that constellate the object, reshaping and adjusting their properties until the object becomes "clear" to us, expanding our arsenal. "New" is an operative word unless you require that it should specify a completely incomprehensible phenomenon that can't be related to anything else.



> All of us have particular habits and routines that we use to maintain specific aspects of our lives. The amount of time we give over to "duties" varies accordingly. Some people are more rigid about it than others. Their functions and preferences keep the foundations of society functional and this purpose frees others to extend, innovate, and continue to expand the boundaries of what is known. At some fundamental level, we do have those who appear to be dull and shallow, but perform a vital function that keeps the lights on and the wheels turning. Are these contributions to society any less valuable than the physicist who discovers a new kind of matter, or the doctor who discovers a cure to a disease, or the inventor who pushes the capabilities of technology beyond what we have today?


I am not judging the value of their contributions. I am saying that all of that is irrelevant.
A dull person will continue being a dull person regardless of how valuable his service is. Furthermore, a dull person can very well be a physicist who discovers a new kind of matter. Because personality isn't your talents, capacities, or the job that you are doing. There is no class of people that are destined to be mindless servitors, just as being Ne user doesn't entail that you are destined to expand the boundaries of something or innovate anything.
Since talent isn't a property of personality, trans-contextual thinking isn't a property or inherent to Ne.



> We approach theory from a different perspective based upon the distinctions I enumerated above. I am one who looks to the perspectives of others to cohese novel ways of looking at things. That's just one of the things I tend to do. I appear to have a mind for brainstorming and problem solving such, that I have repeatedly found myself in situations where those skills come in handy. At times, my mind seems to go all over the place, at others, I can perform with laser focus. Perhaps the fact that I am dominant Ne makes it difficult for me to define it because I'm too close to the fire. I don't know, but I would like to read your take on it.


I would say we don't even approach the same phenomenon.

I don't recognize a "mind for problem-solving and brainstorming" as a personality type or its consequence. Everyone who has a brain is entitled to use it. I am glad that you find the usage of the brain has a positive impact on your life and you keep on repeatedly being impressed by what it can do in many of your posts, but I fail to see how it distinguishes you from others as a person.

By default, I treat people on equal terms, rather than assuming that there is some category of dull slaves like what you basically insinuating that "at least they are doing something valuable." I encourage everyone to use their thinkers, to be strong, independent individuals who can think and decide for themselves. I don't derive their capacities or decide what is their role in the world by what their personalities appear to be.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Poets do this trans-contextual thinking—layman’s term “thinking outside of the box”.
Would they all be classified as just a few personality types?


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Dalien said:


> Poets do this trans-contextual thinking—layman’s term “thinking outside of the box”.
> Would they all be classified as just a few personality types?


I don't know, Nardo seems to think it's more than that.


----------



## lww23 (Mar 7, 2021)

Just curious, is there anyone that really enjoys rote practice and repetition? Can they really learn anything in that way? I can imagine that in the very beginning, some memorization is necessary because of the lack of knowledge, but as you know more, how can you possibly learn by simply repeating? That seems even more primitive than some advanced AI nowadays. They are taught to learn by building up connections.



Allostasis said:


> Everything relates to something else. This is how we cognize things. By recognizing already known elements that constellate the object, reshaping and adjusting their properties until the object becomes "clear" to us, expanding our arsenal.


In my experience of learning English, I started with memorization. A lot of memorization of the alphabet, the individual words, and the simple sentences. At some point (still at the beginner's level), I was able to discover the patterns in word roots and spelling, and spell out many words correctly without memorizing. There's no magic about this and I think we all learn in this way.

The point is, that memorization is important but perhaps common to all types, it is comprehension and abstraction that build up the main part of one's knowledge base. That PJ article might contain some stereotypical views of certain types.


----------



## victorcorcos (10 mo ago)

> “Just curious, is there anyone that really enjoys rote practice and repetition?”


Yes, people with high Si, specially Si-doms tend to enjoy repetition. Why? Because they prefer much more what is reliable than what is new/unknown. They prefer to feel secure more than to put themselves in something that he don’t know how to handle.

The novelty is seen as exciting for Ne-doms, because they like to explore possibilities and potentials.

The novelty is seen as dangerous for Si-doms, because they prefer what he already known, the reliable to him.

And that’s some of the reasons why Ne-doms represses the Si and Si-doms represses the Ne.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)




----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Let's keep in mind that this particular thinking is very energy intensive and people who use it are going to have intellectual highs and lows. This may account for why ENTP and ENFP, despite being extroverted, require a lot of alone time to recharge their "Racecar" brains.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

superloco3000 said:


> I am more intrigued xD.
> Is there a difference between E vs T in this context ... in those mental collages, how do the emotions work?
> 
> I have had mild depression, and emotions are the hardest thing to deal with ... Even small emotional traumas are difficult to assimilate.
> ...


I like a bit of cannabis once a week (edible). I will use it, watch a show or movie, listen to music, write in my journal, and just kind of let my mind wander. It is a pleasant way to change frequencies and slow my thinking down a little. I can do it without it, but it's harder to maintain the control. 

Let me also say that being a Ne dom isn't all sunshine and rainbows. It leads to a lot of trouble when we're young because we're usually very impulsive and have to learn each consequence one at a time. It is a sort of "chaos" that has to be understood in a way that makes it easier to channel, but it is never 100% under control. I think a lot of Ne doms can get hooked on drugs because it's often like trying to tune a car radio and no matter how you adjust the dial, there's static. This is a very energy intensive function, and I'm rather certain this is why ENTPs and ENFPs need more alone time than most other extroverted types, and often seem "ambiverted" at best. 










This is not to say that other types don't have their own superpower. Each one does. Each one has its own set of challenges and rewards:

psychologyjunkie.com/2017/08/10/use-brain-based-myers-briggs-personality-type/


----------



## victorcorcos (10 mo ago)

Hello 👋🏻 . I took a read on Dr Dario Nardi’s book and recently posted a summary about the preferred brain regions activations by each personality type.

I noticed that Dr. Dario Nardi showdd that voth Ne doms (ENTP and ENFP) activates the SAME brain regions, which surprised me. He also mentioned the “Tran-Contextual Thinking” as being both related to ENTPs and ENFPs,

So, just a minor correction, you mentioned ENTP on your main text, but we could write exactly the same for ENFPs, since both of them are Ne-doms and the Trans-Contextual Thinking is something noticed by Dario on both Ne dominants.

Just a minor correction! In addition, he observed that Ne-auxs (INxPs) can also make Trans-Contextual Thinking, just not with the same frequency as Ne-doms.

Cheers 🥂


----------



## victorcorcos (10 mo ago)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I think a lot of Ne doms can get hooked on drugs because it's often like trying to tune a car radio and no matter how you adjust the dial, there's static.


That’s a interesting opinion. On my case, I only used Cannabis twice in my whole life and the reaction on me was:

• I started to associate a bunch of unrelated ideas
• Everything is extremely funny
• The perception of time is reduced

But… this was simply my natural behavior, just pushed even further. Being drugged by Canabbis was like enhancing my Ne to the full extent and supressing my Si to the fullest extent. That’s why we start to loose the memory for details, to loose the percepction of time. Repressed Si. And I just started to associate a lot of things, different ideas, talked them with my friends and we just laughed at these associations.

On my case, I was talking to my friend and noticed that we formed a completely crazy sentence, then I imagined that scene in my head and started laughing. The sentencewas like: “*I am drinking coke on the placenta*”… And I don’t remember how and why we reached the “placenta” theme at all, the “coke” appeared because we were thirsty. It was total pure Ne associations and Trans-Contextual Thinking and pure repressed Si to the fullest extent. 

It’s like Ne-doms are naturally drugged by weed (not cocaine, because this one is another drug category, most Se’ish. Weed is Ne’ish)… Drugs are substances that change how the brain works anyways, and this is a polemic topic that I think is interesting 🤔 

I feel like myself on normal state is the same as ISxJs (Si-doms) smoking weed, because finally they stop being serious and starts to make pure associations (open the mind even further)… Maybe, the weed make a person activates a lot of brain regions simultaneously and it, in the end, is what Ne does. Weed just push to the limits what Ne naturally does.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

victorcorcos said:


> That’s a interesting opinion. On my case, I only used Cannabis twice in my whole life and the reaction on me was:
> 
> • I started to associate a bunch of unrelated ideas
> • Everything is extremely funny
> ...


Perhaps true. I find it changes my frequency a little bit. I have rules.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

victorcorcos said:


> Yes, people with high Si, specially Si-doms tend to enjoy repetition. Why? Because they prefer much more what is reliable than what is new/unknown. They prefer to feel secure more than to put themselves in something that he don’t know how to handle.
> 
> The novelty is seen as exciting for Ne-doms, because they like to explore possibilities and potentials.
> 
> ...


I think you're mixing cause and consequence here. There's no fear of unknown or quest for safety, it's just mostly practical no nonsense approach for those Si types - simple as that - why to think of using screwdriver to hit the nail If hammer does the work well enough? There's just no any reason that would make sense, to think otherwise, that's it. Don't fix what's not broken. Use screwdriver bc it's more "innovative"? No, it'd be nothing but a bs. No wonder then why things wouldn't get done and user gets bored and leaves things incomplete, excusing themselves that it's Ne

Besides, most daily life duties and responsibilities we just have to deal in order to maintain and improve our living standards, barely are that innovative and unique anyway  I'd just sit and think of cool ideas too if I didn't have any other responsibilities that take most of the time, sure that! But entertaining yourself with cool ideas how to sidetrack away from the focus, unfortunately doesn't put bread on our table, no?

In most cases, things are simple and straightforward, no unnecessary complexity needed, no hidden meanings and unrevealed potentials to be revealed. Really.

From my observations, Ne is more entertained by exploring those potentials than actually doing smth useful with them. How cool it's to share mind with Einstein, right, while smoothly "forgetting" to ask yourself why haven't yourself or zillions of others sharing his type before and after him, got any real ideas and theories implemented? Unfortunately coolness of that thought is the only real thing possible to get there. Generalization from single occurrences of a representative of particular type to a wider group doesn't just work. It's a bad theory if it makes us believe the opposite


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

tarmonk said:


> I think you're mixing cause and consequence here. There's no fear of unknown or quest for safety, it's just mostly practical no nonsense approach for those Si types - simple as that - why to think of using screwdriver to hit the nail If hammer does the work well enough? There's just no any reason that would make sense, to think otherwise, that's it. Don't fix what's not broken. Use screwdriver bc it's more "innovative"? No, it'd be nothing but a bs. No wonder then why things wouldn't get done and user gets bored and leaves things incomplete, excusing themselves that it's Ne
> 
> Besides, most daily life duties and responsibilities we just have to deal in order to maintain and improve our living standards, barely are that innovative and unique anyway  I'd just sit and think of cool ideas too if I didn't have any other responsibilities that take most of the time, sure that! But entertaining yourself with cool ideas how to sidetrack away from the focus, unfortunately doesn't put bread on our table, no?
> 
> ...


Agreed with regards to Ne. We're great brainstormers, but not so good with the follow-through, that's why Edison had a whole bunch of talented minions who could take his ideas and run with them. He was more the "face" of his empire (he was almost better at marketing himself than he was at inventing anything). I don't buy Edison as an ESTP, he's got ENTP 3w2 written all over him.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Agreed with regards to Ne. We're great brainstormers, but not so good with the follow-through, that's why Edison had a whole bunch of talented minions who could take his ideas and run with them. He was more the "face" of his empire (he was almost better at marketing himself than he was at inventing anything). I don't buy Edison as an ESTP, he's got ENTP 3w2 written all over him.


Hmm but isn't brainstorming more about concious thinking using rationale, not coming from perception? I can do that well too. Or maybe there are different ways for brainstorming and types can do it differently. Perception isn't a concious rational way to create thoughts on demand - that's what made me think so.

About important scientifical inventions - feels like unfortunately the man with most cool sounding name gets most of praise and credits while I'm sure most of it was a teamwork not an effort of a single guy. Big things are usually not a work of single guy, especially nowadays when it gets harder and harder to come to something revolutionary that didn't exist before.

Even figuring out relativistic theory became possible thanks to that previous math and physics guys did a lot of work over centuries that finally led there. It would have been impossible to come to that from scratch - otherwise it would have happened already much earlier, as geniuses have always existed.

Some things need right time and place and also a bit of luck in order to happen  For example, one friend came to an idea of some app service already some 15 years ago and tried to implement it then but no luck as world wasn't yet ready for that. Years later same services which are now widespread around the world, were implemented independently by someone else - timeframe was more suitable for the world then


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

tarmonk said:


> Hmm but isn't brainstorming more about concious thinking using rationale, not coming from perception? I can do that well too. Or maybe there are different ways for brainstorming and types can do it differently. Perception isn't a concious rational way to create thoughts on demand - that's what made me think so.
> 
> About important scientifical inventions - feels like unfortunately the man with most cool sounding name gets most of praise and credits while I'm sure most of it was a teamwork not an effort of a single guy. Big things are usually not a work of single guy, especially nowadays when it gets harder and harder to come to something revolutionary that didn't exist before.
> 
> ...


When I'm brainstorming, I'm spitting out ideas faster than I can analyze or assess them, therefore some of them are usually ridiculous, some of them are useless, and some of them are gems. This is where I require the assistance of an INTP or INTJ (among others) to take what I'm spitting out, sort the wheat from the chaff, and make it into something useful. 

It's making new connections and seeing patterns in ways that at first glace, don't seem valid. Nothing is formed in a vacuum. Isaac Newton himself said: "I stand on the shoulders of giants." We are all contributors to the advancement of knowledge in one way or the other, even if most of us never realize it. Newton and Leibniz never met, nor corresponded, yet they both developed calculus independently of one another. It isn't like England and Germany are on other sides of the world from one another, but at the time, the distance was far greater than today. Now we have platforms that allow near instantaneous collaboration all around the world at the same time. Is it any wonder we are still seeing amazing innovations being developed (but I digress)?


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

tanstaafl28 said:


> When I'm brainstorming, I'm spitting out ideas faster than I can analyze or assess them, therefore some of them are usually ridiculous, some of them are useless, and some of them are gems. This is where I require the assistance of an INTP or INTJ (among others) to take what I'm spitting out, sort the wheat from the chaff, and make it into something useful.
> 
> It's making new connections and seeing patterns in ways that at first glace, don't seem valid. Nothing is formed in a vacuum. Isaac Newton himself said: "I stand on the shoulders of giants." We are all contributors to the advancement of knowledge in one way or the other, even if most of us never realize it. Newton and Leibniz never met, nor corresponded, yet they both developed calculus independently of one another. It isn't like England and Germany are on other sides of the world from one another, but at the time, the distance was far greater than today. Now we have platforms that allow near instantaneous collaboration all around the world at the same time. Is it any wonder we are still seeing amazing innovations being developed (but I digress)?


Thanks for explaining, understood!


----------

