# Why INTJs are NOT the master strategists



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

18skeltor said:


> Seems that the ISTP OP knows exactly how the ISTP functions works together (he is one), yet has no idea how the INTJ functions work together (he is not one).
> 
> This guy is probably just a huge contrarian and a wee bit jealous.
> 
> ...


----------



## B3LIAL (Dec 21, 2013)

I think it's also amusing that the OP thinks that putting emotions aside is automatically an advantage, and that emotionless = win.

No it doesn't OP.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

I think any type can be the 'Master Strategist'.


----------



## Jenko (Sep 11, 2014)

First, there are different types of intelligence, and everybody knows it, that being said, there are different occasions for each intelligence to be better, but is dare for you to say that in general ISTP's are smarter than INTJ's, IN GENERAL. because even for me, sometimes my ISFJ friend points out a lot of stupid conducts that I do just to make a point but in the end I kind of fuck myself for little, it's part of me, as is part of an INFP fight without stop and without a minimum of reason to an ideology. to sum up, in general iNtuitors are smarter than Sensors, and if I had to choose the most intelligent type (I'm not considering practicity, because for me that defines cleverness and not intelligence) I would say that the most intelligent type is definetly INTP


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

proto said:


> Genghis khan and Joseph stalin would disagree with that. "Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem."
> 
> I don't know why people listen to machiavelli. How about taking advice from someone who actually accomplished something noteworthy. Genghis khan was the greatest conqueror who ever lived and he decimated everyone without mercy. There is nobody more cut throat than genghis khan.


There's a book titled _Chinese Machiavelli_ which dedicates a large discussion to Machiavellianism in Genghis Khan's political philosophy. This would be far from the first time Genghis Khan has been retroactively considered a Machiavellian. I'm not sure how you're measuring 'good' strategy; Stalin's Five Year Plans had short-term success but the foundations on which he built the Soviet Empire were clearly faulty. Moreover, despite the ultimate capture of Berlin, Nazi forces did make it somewhat within a hair's breadth of Moscow during WWII. Robert Service in _Stalin: A Biography_ notes that this was due to administrative incompetence: Stalin pouted in his room!


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

I reckon the term strategist was meant as a general guide for understanding how we interact with the world. We like strategy and do things very intentionally with an end-goal in mind when we do them. The same with mastermind. It's not that we have some "master mind" that proves our intellectual superiority, it's that we mastermind operations (as a verb) and try to get things done while avoiding the spotlight. Saying we're the best at strategy (or any type is the best at it) is kind of ignorant towards individuality. Functions stacking could offer advantages in certain ways, but it's nothing that personal growth and life experience can't overcome. I ultimately believe the people who are the best strategists, are those who work the hardest at learning to understand and use it. Many types are fascinated with strategy. I've seen countless NTPs who understood the context of a game's strategy better than I ever did, and I've known SFP friends who became better at finding opportunities and applying my own strategies than I was when I shared my reasoning.

I like to get things down to a science of priorities when it comes to adaption (maybe being an So INTJ has a considerable influence on that, and why I came to enjoy taoism and the path of least resistance so much). That's in my opinion, the essence of where I get my strength in strategy - I'm so focused on getting clarity through the grey areas and making distinctions, that given time, I can end up with some pretty masterful and effective ways of using an environment. But there's more than one way to work. I've known tons of ISTPs with a far stronger work ethic than me, who are more active in seizing their opportunities and building on it. In contrast, I tend to be quite selective of my path of action in trying to find a plan that will almost unquestionably bring constructive consequences. I maneuver myself into position, and then just let things unfold naturally. It doesn't mean I'm better, or that I'd win in a strategic contest. I never claim to think better than people (let alone large groups of people who I don't even know), only differently. Elitism interferes with learning in my experience.

Also I agree that being emotionless is impractical, it's actually a weakness. So is not being able to keep your composure in not letting your emotions cloud your judgment, but without a proper focus into understanding your own emotions and the emotions of others, you miss a lot of context for understanding why things happen.


----------



## Truth Advocate (Apr 14, 2014)

proto said:


> Intjs get hyped up on here like they are some kind of demi god strategist. I see them talk down to sensors like we are common men. Everyone buys into the hype and worships them and types every strategic character on tv an intj. This is simply not the case in reality. Let's deconstruct their functions.
> 
> Ni - A perceiving function that deals with patterns, impressions and thinks long term. Often getting getting involuntary bursts of insight. These bursts of insight are what make INTJs think they are so clever. But how accurate are these bursts of insight? With no filter on Ni these bursts of insight can be based on anything. This leads to things like paranoid nonsensical plots and plans with questionable practicality. Being able to think long term doesn't make someone a master strategist. You fail to see the present conditions of the battlefield. Somebody who is more dynamic than you can beat you in the short term. In fact only being able to focus on the long term is a weakness.
> 
> ...


Wow, _you're_ biased.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

To be honest, I don't know where this stereotype comes from. I've never viewed myself as being strategically minded. My least favourite genres of video games are startegy and RPGs. I like to learn things and understand systems but I would never call myself a "strategist"; nor do I have good organisational skills. Maybe I'm INTP or I don't connect with the generalisation (or the genralisation is ill-founded), but even the term "master strategist" is quite vague and lacking in context.


----------



## proto (Oct 2, 2014)

Irondust said:


> There's a book titled _Chinese Machiavelli_ which dedicates a large discussion to Machiavellianism in Genghis Khan's political philosophy. This would be far from the first time Genghis Khan has been retroactively considered a Machiavellian. I'm not sure how you're measuring 'good' strategy; Stalin's Five Year Plans had short-term success but the foundations on which he built the Soviet Empire were clearly faulty. Moreover, despite the ultimate capture of Berlin, Nazi forces did make it somewhat within a hair's breadth of Moscow during WWII. Robert Service in _Stalin: A Biography_ notes that this was due to administrative incompetence: Stalin pouted in his room!


Well that's just backwards and desperate. You are trying to attribute genghis khan's accomplishments to machiavellianism even though genghis khan lived before him. Genghis khan's accomplishments stand on their own. He used tactics he didn't have a political philosophy. Surrender to him or he would destroy you was basically it. I measure good strategy based on results. Stalin won WWII. Machiavelli was nobody.


----------



## chanteuse (May 30, 2014)

Bahburah said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I play Magic (the gathering) with my INTJ friend, and while I've noticed that Ti-Ne is great and almost better than him in finding better strategy in the moment, since Ti can adjust very well.
> 
> ...


This, is a good example of difference between J and P. 

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

Feel free to try and disprove anything I said with actual evidence.[/QUOTE]


feel free to prove your point with actual evidence


----------



## Wartime Consigliere (Feb 8, 2011)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> Maybe I'm INTP or I don't connect with the generalisation (or the genralisation is ill-founded), but even the term "master strategist" is quite vague and lacking in context.


That's the nature of all of the terms, I reckon. Just overly vague models to guide people (despite the lack of context in how they're relevant) because of their distinct differences. People just take the terms too literally to the point where other types that display the behaviours of the terms make people assume their preferences are the ones of that particular type. =_=

Another title I found online that I rather liked for being a bit more accurate (imo) for INTJs was Conceptual Director. Overall though, I don't like any terms very much. Seems like a cop out compared to actually understanding the different types thoroughly.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Something I don't care for with all this typing stuff - too much generalizing. It doesn't always fit. 

Besides, being strategic isn't something glamorous to be bragged about. It can be downright neurotic sometimes. Like me, I am a strategist in the least cool way possible. I look for every outcome and plan for every possible contingency. Thats why I never got in trouble much growing up. I did some bad things, but I always gave myself a way out, planned an escape route. I did nothing, and do nothing, on a whim. I reckon a lot of other "strategic" people are the same way. 

Although I am the only person I know who carries socks in her purse and an earthquake kit in her car. I will not be caught unprepared! Got a strategy for that, too.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

proto said:


> Well that's just backwards and desperate. You are trying to attribute genghis khan's accomplishments to machiavellianism even though genghis khan lived before him. Genghis khan's accomplishments stand on their own. He used tactics he didn't have a political philosophy. Surrender to him or he would destroy you was basically it. I measure good strategy based on results. Stalin won WWII. Machiavelli was nobody.


I encourage you to read the books I mentioned, or to provide your own historical analysis buttressed by _specifics_. And there isn't anything strange about going back and considering a person to be Machiavellian despite his never having read Machiavelli. 'Machiavellianism', just like realpolitik, is a political philosophy that theoretically doesn't require literally having read _The Prince_ to actually employ. Incidentally, Genghis Khan's political philosophy is nicely codified (in part) in something called the Yasa. So he did have one.

I measure master strategy based not only on results but on how those results are achieved -- master strategies win the game so to speak while conserving resources and mitigating sacrifices -- because that's partly what a strategy is for. I think anyone who allows the enemy at his gates, win or lose in the end, cannot reasonably be termed a master strategist because that is a patently stupid and wasteful move not only in time but also in money, lives, risk to success, etc. And, as I have said previously, the foundations on which his empire were built were somewhat rotten.

Sorry, but I think you have overextended yourself here in more ways than one.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Sherlock Holmes -> LSE (ESTJ); in fact, Holmes is actually the celebrity name of the type (highly scrutinized and accepted). [Holmes and Stirletz both refer to LSE]


Steve Jobs -> Heavily Debated. LSI (ISTP) is a highly uncommon suggestion. Usually LIE (ENTJ), LII (INTP), SLI (ISTJ), or ILI (INTJ)


Gregory House -> ILE (ENTP) with absurdly strong vital Ni as a gift from the writers. Is the *Supervising* type to LSI (ISTP). 


Bill Gates -> Also Heavily Debated. Front runners are ILE (ENTP) and LIE (ENTJ), followed by LII (INTP) and ILI (INTJ)

That's 0 for 4.

In fact, the only Quadra not represented here is Beta, which holds the LSI (ISTP).


----------



## Yellow Submarine (Oct 2, 2014)

proto said:


> Intjs get hyped up on here like they are some kind of demi god strategist. I see them talk down to sensors like we are common men.


Hey man what's wrong with common men? I'm not being facetious.


----------



## proto (Oct 2, 2014)

Irondust said:


> I encourage you to read the books I mentioned, or to provide your own historical analysis buttressed by _specifics_. And there isn't anything strange about going back and considering a person to be Machiavellian despite his never having read Machiavelli. 'Machiavellianism', just like realpolitik, is a political philosophy that theoretically doesn't require literally having read _The Prince_ to actually employ. Incidentally, Genghis Khan's political philosophy is nicely codified (in part) in something called the Yasa. So he did have one.
> 
> I measure master strategy based not only on results but on how those results are achieved -- master strategies win the game so to speak while conserving resources and mitigating sacrifices -- because that's partly what a strategy is for. I think anyone who allows the enemy at his gates, win or lose in the end, cannot reasonably be termed a master strategist because that is a patently stupid and wasteful move not only in time but also in money, lives, risk to success, etc. And, as I have said previously, the foundations on which his empire were built were somewhat rotten.
> 
> Sorry, but I think you have overextended yourself here in more ways than one.


The yasa was just rules he setup so he could keep control. Nothing to do with machiavellianism. No I'm not reading your obscure chinese book. Results are all that matter in war. Win a war with tanks or nukes nobody cares. A win is a win. All you intuitives care about is the theory itself and none of the practicalities. You can obsess about the theory all you want but in the actual field you will get your ass kicked. Reality is unforgiving it doesn't care about your theory.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

proto said:


> Results are all that matter in war. Win a war with tanks or nukes nobody cares. A win is a win.


And what if the result is public backlash for wasting resources or for going too far to achieve that win? What if the result is a line-up of other great powers against you because you swallowed up some territory when you won? What if the result is that you have a conquered people but don't have the resources to rule them? Not all wins are equal, and in many cases strategy isn't restricted to the battlefield anyway. Raw power and getting things done for the sake of getting things done are overrated. And, if you want to argue that results are all that matter, then you have to consider results in the long run as well as in the short run. Being good at making a decision in the moment to solve a temporary problem such as a battle, or a war, does not a master strategist make. You have to think in terms of politics and economics and social consequences too -- things that happen not only during but years after the battle or the war is over. Hate on theory all you want but this kind of conceptual analysis is critical in developing a strategy.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

A problem with your breaking down of the functions is that you focus on one function at a time; however, not a single person ONLY uses a single function at a time. It is a machine that uses many cogs to create the final outcome.

Yes, Ni is a long term function, but Te is a function that deals with the moment (just like for INFJs that would be Fe). With their Ni, they are able to logically organize all the variables that are on the battlefield and come up with a pattern for a long term goal. Also, Ni helps with moving parts around in their head and guessing with intuition on how something might happen if they took action A, resulting in picking action B 

Next is Fi: Ni-Fi helps INTJs make emotional responses quickly: Ni-Ti, for INFJs, helps make logical responses quickly. When working with armies and nations, it's best to know the human element, which is why Ni-Fi would help, if an INTJ doesn't neglect their Fi. 

Their inferior Se would not cause too much of an issue. INTJ's are not on the battlefield, so they don't need to instantly react to the senses. Their Te is more than capable of picking up on these things from afar and factoring them in, in peace, within their head.

ISTPs would be better warriors on the battlefield than INTJ.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

chanteuse said:


> This, is a good example of difference between J and P.
> 
> Thanks for sharing.


Yea I realized that it's good example of perceiving inside (J) and outside (P).


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

Antipode said:


> Their inferior Se would not cause too much of an issue. INTJ's are not on the battlefield, so they don't need to instantly react to the senses. Their Te is more than capable of picking up on these things from afar and factoring them in, in peace, within their head.


To be fair I think inferior Se is problematic. It does impinge on one's ability to make good decisions in the moment but it can also impair one's ability to be attentive to details when undeveloped. I think details are every bit as important to a strategy as long-range thinking because plans that aren't based on concrete reality aren't likely to succeed. Ni can be somewhat myopic and likely to overextend without developed Se.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Irondust said:


> To be fair I think inferior Se is problematic. It does impinge on one's ability to make good decisions in the moment but it can also impair one's ability to be attentive to details when undeveloped. I think details are every bit as important to a strategy as long-range thinking because plans that aren't based on concrete reality aren't likely to succeed. Ni can be somewhat myopic and likely to overextend without developed Se.


Yes, but what army is going to be absent of people who can use Se? They can easily just relay what in the world is going in to the INTJ, and then the INTJ creates strategies. 

The opposite of that isn't as easy.


----------



## proto (Oct 2, 2014)

Irondust said:


> And what if the result is public backlash for wasting resources or for going too far to achieve that win? What if the result is a line-up of other great powers against you because you swallowed up some territory when you won? What if the result is that you have a conquered people but don't have the resources to rule them? Not all wins are equal, and in many cases strategy isn't restricted to the battlefield anyway. Raw power and getting things done for the sake of getting things done are overrated. And, if you want to argue that results are all that matter, then you have to consider results in the long run as well as in the short run. Being good at making a decision in the moment to solve a temporary problem such as a battle, or a war, does not a master strategist make. You have to think in terms of politics and economics and social consequences too -- things that happen not only during but years after the battle or the war is over. Hate on theory all you want but this kind of conceptual analysis is critical in developing a strategy.


It's simple you either get to keep control or you don't. Those are part of the results. The better strategy you have the better results you get.



> Raw power and getting things done for the sake of getting things done are overrated.


That is only your theory and not at all true in reality. Brute force goes against the way an INTJ thinks but that is often the best strategy to use. You can't be a good strategist if you ignore the most basic elements of strategy. While you are theorizing in your room for the perfect pretty strategy a guy with an army of a million can steamroll you immediately with no strategy.



> You have to think in terms of politics and economics and social consequences to


You can worry about that stuff after you actually win. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. But yes results in the long run matter. You have to be able to do both. It's like in starcraft you have to keep track of your micro and macro. An INTJ would only care about macro.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

Antipode said:


> Yes, but what army is going to be absent of people who can use Se? They can easily just relay what in the world is going in to the INTJ, and then the INTJ creates strategies.
> 
> The opposite of that isn't as easy.


That's a good point. But doesn't that assume he has an army? I like to think strategy can be applied anywhere, such as in office politics or when the agent in question wants to get that dream career or when he is playing a card game with his friend, etc. I think in many situations, which are more mundane than war and macro-politics, the strategist is also the one having to notice the details in order to make the decisions.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

The point of this thread appears to be "INTJ's are overhyped." I don't disagree with that point, although I think the overall attitude and assumption that is it mostly true INTJ who hype themselves is irritating as fuck, and essentially a straw man. 

Here's the deal:



> Some real life examples of this are bill gates (intj) and steve jobs (istp). Yes steve jobs was istp he was known as the practical one. Steve jobs could exploit trends (Se) and create quality original well thought out products (Ti). Bill gates got ahead by stealing other people's products (Te). This is why in the end apple won over Microsoft.
> 
> Feel free to try and disprove anything I said with actual evidence.


Steve Jobs was not an ISTP, Steve Jobs was an ENTP. Vision first, logical integration second. Any reading on Steve Jobs' role at Apple puts him as its marketing visionary and product design concepts, not as its lead programmer or the one who sorted through the rote logical methodologies needed to actually program what was sold. ISTP would be much more likely to be doing the latter, which to be fair is still highly respectable. But since the OP was trying to equate his type with Steve Jobs, the argument itself in the OP is misinformed.



> Ni - A perceiving function that deals with patterns, impressions and thinks long term. Often getting getting involuntary bursts of insight. These bursts of insight are what make INTJs think they are so clever. But how accurate are these bursts of insight? With no filter on Ni these bursts of insight can be based on anything. This leads to things like paranoid nonsensical plots and plans with questionable practicality. Being able to think long term doesn't make someone a master strategist. You fail to see the present conditions of the battlefield. Somebody who is more dynamic than you can beat you in the short term. In fact only being able to focus on the long term is a weakness.
> 
> 
> Ni - Planning long term is one of the options an istp can use instead of being the only option. Istps also get bursts of insight but these bursts of insight actually have a filter. They get routed through Ti and Se first making them scarily accurate. To see an example of this look at Sherlock Holmes. He notices things in his environment (Se) and is able to intuitively read into the situation to know what is really happening. This also applies to House (yes he is istp not intj).


Having a function as dominant does not mean that a function has no filter. You are arguing that Ni is only valuable when it is used by someone who DOESN'T USE THE FUNCTION AS FLUIDLY, which makes zero sense unless you believe the function itself sucks as a whole. If the function itself sucks, it sucks for IN_J and IS_P, as well as EN_J. It isn't a controlled insight for ISTP and a complete impediment to INFJ and INTJ. Ni Dominant shitty doesn't become Ni incredible when it's the third function. That's also stupid. 



> Te - Good for organizing and managing information. Not exactly a strategic function unless you are interested in becoming a master organizer. Ti has more depth and is craftier than Te. Te has problems thinking independently of the group often unsure of unproven things. Te often uses existing information or steals from competitors. Te has problems with originality.


This is in reverse. Ti is good at organizing and managing information because it's process is to deal directly with the logical systems that DO these things. 

Ne is the function that looks to multiple unproven possibilities, not Te or Ti. INTJ are stronger in Ne than ISTP. Neither Te nor Ti has much of anything to do with being "crafty," original, or independent from others - these are personality traits, not traits of a mental process, and the PURPOSE of a cognitive function is to be more specific to mental processes than personality traits 




Go craft yourself an original clue and come back with a real thread comparing these two types. This analysis is full of shit.


----------



## Dao (Sep 13, 2013)

proto said:


> It's simple you either get to keep control or you don't. Those are part of the results. The better strategy you have the better results you get.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I no longer see what point you are trying to make. You are discussing tactics and not strategy. The parameters in your hypothetical situations are also silly; there is no point in having a strategy when you are outclassed and outnumbered by astronomical margins. However, those situations are also orthogonal to any discussion regarding the essential nature of a master strategy, which is a preliminary discussion that is critical to understanding which type is better suited to developing one.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@Figure

Finally, a real post; I was ignoring this thread until now.

Here comes the shitstorm.


----------



## VinnyCrow (Oct 21, 2014)

I agree that INTJs are not master strategists; MBTI is only a framework of thought process, not a measure of intelligence or creativity, and so it ultimately depends on the individual, not the type, as to how skilled they are in strategy. What is most strategic will also depend on the circumstances or objectives in question. Each type tends to have greater skills in certain areas, but weaknesses in others, meaning that no type is necessarily superior. Differences are vital, as they allow for balance. It's unfortunate that there should be any biases in the MBTI community.

That said, I cannot agree with the argument: to be forthright about it, it's a straw man. Even so, any argument over one type or function being superior or inferior is only arbitrary in the end. Yes, INTJs have a lot of hype, which I don't appreciate, myself, but that's no reason to try to tear down the type itself; address the hype.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Abraxas said:


> @_Figure_
> 
> Finally, a real post; I was ignoring this thread until now.
> 
> Here comes the shitstorm.



Well, we have a long way to go. 

What we are doing now is debating personality traits at the cognitive function level. Personality traits do not occur at the cognitive function level, if they occur anywhere related to type theory it's at the CF-role in the psyche level, which we haven't even gotten to yet. If we want to do this right, we need to get these on the table now or this entire conversation is as I said before, a pile of garbage.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Irondust said:


> That's a good point. But doesn't that assume he has an army? I like to think strategy can be applied anywhere, such as in office politics or when the agent in question wants to get that dream career or when he is playing a card game with his friend, etc. I think in many situations, which are more mundane than war and macro-politics, the strategist is also the one having to notice the details in order to make the decisions.


Well, if you think about it just cards, then an INTJ would do extremely well, since there are less variables to have to take notice.

However, in poker games, a player who can discern player's emotions would probably have a leg over one who just knows how to build a good hand.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Figure said:


> Well, we have a long way to go.
> 
> What we are doing now is debating personality traits at the cognitive function level. Personality traits do not occur at the cognitive function level, if they occur anywhere related to type theory it's at the CF-role in the psyche level, which we haven't even gotten to yet. If we want to do this right, we need to get these on the table now or this entire conversation is as I said before, a pile of garbage.


On that, I'm curious what you think about the following, as this is what I've been telling people up until now:


To understand the essence of the "INTJ", or any personality type for that matter, is to frame it from the perspective of being a kind of ongoing struggle between the dominant and inferior function. To the degree that the individual shows a strongly differentiated preference for their dominant function (i.e., how strongly they rely on it), then that is how powerfully their inferior function will manifest as an unconscious (and sometimes conscious) fear/desire.

Since Ni is characteristic of an inner-vision and imagination that necessarily involves a dissociation from sensation (e.g., you can't listen to the teacher very well when you're too busy day-dreaming), this means sensation becomes a problem if left alone for too long. Deep-seated fears about being "out-of-touch" with reality begin to creep in, and then the INTJ seeks ways to relate themselves to the external world of tangible things to keep from completely losing their grasp on reality.


To summarize what I just said:

1. The real portrait of the INTJ comes from an analysis of the relationship between Ni lead and Se inferior.
2. The stronger the lead function conscious preference, the stronger the inferior function unconscious preference.
3. Ni is a preference for delving into the structure of one's own imagination, and Se is a preference for being grounded in the here-and-now of external physical reality.


The INTJ "deals with" their inferior function primarily through their auxiliary function. The auxiliary function takes on the role (in Beebe's model) of the "parent" for precisely that reason - its somewhat negativistic attitude is due to the fact that it owes it's entire existence to "handling" the dissonance that arises from the inferior function. For after all, if the inferior function were not a bother, then the INTJ would have no real cause to leave their imaginations in the first place.

There are essentially two views on the attitude of the auxiliary function. One of these views is held by most Jungian scholars and enthusiasts, the other is held by enthusiasts of Myers-Briggs.

Jung seemed to be of the opinion that the attitude of consciousness itself would determine what the attitude of the function that just so happened to be conscious at any time would take on (i.e., if intuition and thinking were both conscious, and consciousness was introverted, then intuition and thinking would both share the same attitude - introversion.) This is easy enough to grasp and understand, so I'll move right on to Myers-Briggs interpretation, which takes a bit more explaining.

Myers-Briggs instead decided that the auxiliary function would have an opposing attitude to the dominant function. I assume this is because this would (at least in theory) seem to better facilitate integrating the inferior function. After all, since extraversion in general is defined by Jung as a preference for objectivity and concrete data, then _all_ extraverted functions would have that in common - and generally speaking, they do. Thus, with Se as the inferior, it would seem then that Te would be the best form of judgment to "apperceive" and make use of raw Se input (if we accept the assumption that a person "ought to" try to balance their introversion with their extraversion - an assumption I do not necessarily agree with personally and thus a point of contention I have with MBTI.)

I don't believe that the attitude is so certain in either case. I believe it can really come down to a matter of circumstance and personal preference. It may just be that you have one INTJ who develops Te over Ti as their auxiliary to help treat the dissonance from Se. Perhaps this happens due to social conditioning, or perhaps there is a biological reason, or a mixture of the two. You may, if I am correct, also encounter an INTJ who develops Ti over Te as their auxiliary function. Perhaps this is because they are not as strongly socialized at a young age, or again it could be biological, or a combination of these. Due to the fact that there is so little quantitative research on the functions in the first place, all of this is open to speculation.


To summarize what I have just said:

1. The auxiliary function serves the purpose of "dealing with" the dissonance coming from the inferior function.
2. The attitude of the auxiliary function is a matter of opinion. Myers-Briggs believed it would be opposite the dominant, Jung seemed to believe it would share the same attitude of the dominant.
3. The attitude of the auxiliary function may just come down to personal preference and circumstances.


******************************


----------



## proto (Oct 2, 2014)

Figure said:


> Steve Jobs was not an ISTP, Steve Jobs was an ENTP. Vision first, logical integration second. Any reading on Steve Jobs' role at Apple puts him as its marketing visionary and product design concepts, not as its lead programmer or the one who sorted through the rote logical methodologies needed to actually program what was sold. ISTP would be much more likely to be doing the latter, which to be fair is still highly respectable. But since the OP was trying to equate his type with Steve Jobs, the argument itself in the OP is misinformed.
> 
> Having a function as dominant does not mean that a function has no filter. You are arguing that Ni is only valuable when it is used by someone who DOESN'T USE THE FUNCTION AS FLUIDLY, which makes zero sense unless you believe the function itself sucks as a whole. If the function itself sucks, it sucks for IN_J and IS_P, as well as EN_J. It isn't a controlled insight for ISTP and a complete impediment to INFJ and INTJ. Ni Dominant shitty doesn't become Ni incredible when it's the third function. That's also stupid.
> 
> ...


Everything about your post is wrong. I will deconstruct this for you point by point.



> Steve Jobs was not an ISTP, Steve Jobs was an ENTP. Vision first, logical integration second. Any reading on Steve Jobs' role at Apple puts him as its marketing visionary and product design concepts, not as its lead programmer or the one who sorted through the rote logical methodologies needed to actually program what was sold. ISTP would be much more likely to be doing the latter, which to be fair is still highly respectable.


First of all this is not how you type. You have to look at functions not stereotypes. You are typing off impressions and nothing more. None of the stuff you said is evidence of a type. By saying steve jobs is an ENTP because he has vision you are assuming that ISTPs don't have vision which is not true. ISTPs do have vision and it's the most accurate vision like I stated before. Steve jobs was the practical one he didn't dabble too much into the theory stuff like coding. He used Wozniak to code who by the way is the actual ENTP. Wozniak considered himself a people person (tertiary Fe). Steve jobs was notoriously bad with people and feelings and even got fired for it (inferior Fe). If steve jobs was ENTP where is his tertiary Fe? See you're already wrong I don't need to keep going. I could write you a 2 page list on all of steve job's ISTP qualities if I wanted to. Steve jobs is not the first ISTP visionary but that's enough for today.



> Having a function as dominant does not mean that a function has no filter. You are arguing that Ni is only valuable when it is used by someone who DOESN'T USE THE FUNCTION AS FLUIDLY, which makes zero sense unless you believe the function itself sucks as a whole. If the function itself sucks, it sucks for IN_J and IS_P, as well as EN_J. It isn't a controlled insight for ISTP and a complete impediment to INFJ and INTJ. Ni Dominant shitty doesn't become Ni incredible when it's the third function. That's also stupid.


Actually yes intuitive dominants have no filter. It's the most obvious in ENTPs. ENTPs jump from idea to idea with no care for the validity or quality behind their ideas. They simply like the idea itself. The ideas have the control. This is what I call not having a filter because there is nothing saying which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. INTPs on the other hand do have a filter. They can sort through which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. ISTPs can also sort through which ideas are good and which ideas are bad with the addition of being checked against reality for practicality (Se). ENTPs have vision alright but it's usually terrible nonsensical vision that has no connection to reality. So yes including yourself you have no filter. Which is why you can type steve jobs as an ENTP with no real evidence behind it.



> Ne is the function that looks to multiple unproven possibilities, not Te or Ti. INTJ are stronger in Ne than ISTP. Neither Te nor Ti has much of anything to do with being "crafty," original, or independent from others - these are personality traits, not traits of a mental process, and the PURPOSE of a cognitive function is to be more specific to mental processes than personality traits


Se is a very experimental function and will try multiple possibilities. Ti is independent thinking so yes it does have something to do with originality and being independent from others. Like right now you and your Te have problems believing anything I say because what I'm saying in your eyes is unproven by others and therefore bullshit. If you had Ti you would be able to use sequential logic and understand the validity to what I'm saying without needing it to be proven by others first. Most of your personality traits come from your cognitive processes. They are one and the same.



> Go craft yourself an original clue and come back with a real thread comparing these two types. This analysis is full of shit.


Actually my analysis is accurate. Ti by definition is an analytic function. Ni is not. All you are doing is spewing garbage Ni theories that haven't been checked against reality.



Irondust said:


> I no longer see what point you are trying to make. You are discussing tactics and not strategy. The parameters in your hypothetical situations are also silly; there is no point in having a strategy when you are outclassed and outnumbered by astronomical margins. However, those situations are also orthogonal to any discussion regarding the essential nature of a master strategy, which is a preliminary discussion that is critical to understanding which type is better suited to developing one.


I'm saying you underestimate the value of raw power. Raw power itself is a strategy and can potentially render any strategy you have useless.


----------



## spylass (Jan 25, 2014)

INTJs will be arrogant, structured and idealistic enough to: a) make a plan b) stick to the plan c) work on improving their plan.
Whether or not they are good strategists I don't know. But being an INTP, I would never commit to a plan in the first place, so maybe the fact that they bother with all of that makes them seem like good strategists.


----------



## AmandaLee (Aug 13, 2014)

I think Te doms are the top strategists. The strength of Ni is discernment. It's better suited for philosophical pursuits or "soft science", IMO. Think "holistic visionary". Inferior Se can also make an INTJ slow to pick up on cues from the environment and thus prevent them from changing tactics accordingly.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)




----------



## 11thNight (Sep 2, 2012)

I must say, as a type in general, not accounting for individual discrepancies, INTJs are pretty well quipped for strategy. Does that apply to every INTJ individual and mean that as a type they are the best or only strategists? No.

I disagree with almost all the assertions of the OP, but I do like that ISTPs are actually being considered strategists. Too often I think they are considered brainless, thrill-seeking daredevils (SPs in general too). I tend to see them as being the most abstract of the sensors. They have some pretty powerful Ti (which could be considered more abstract or less concrete than Te) and have tertiary Ni, meaning that though they are primarily sensors, they are still fairly balanced with regard to sensing and intuiting. An ISTP's primary function (Ti) will probably drive them toward more intellectual interests than they are stereotyped to have. Also because of Ti and having a tertiary intuiting function, to me they can come off as having a strange bit of N flavoring.

Also, if I were to use my ISTP brother as an example--one of his favorite pass-times is strategy games--chess and various strategy based board games and computer games. He's also quite good at them and always seems to win. Yet at the same time he still does a lot of the crazy SP stuff, like jumping off bridges (literally).


----------



## 66393 (Oct 17, 2013)

yeah. it's quite obvious, INFP's are the master strategists. I thought the world of MBTI consensually agreed on this?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

proto said:


> First of all this is not how you type. You have to look at functions not stereotypes. You are typing off impressions and nothing more. *None of the stuff you said is evidence of a type.*


In the future, you may wish to be careful in making sweeping claims like this. It's one of the first things I learned not to do in my critical thinking class.




proto said:


> *By saying steve jobs is an ENTP because he has vision you are assuming that ISTPs don't have vision which is not true.* ISTPs do have vision and it's the most accurate vision like I stated before. Steve jobs was the practical one he didn't dabble too much into the theory stuff like coding. He used Wozniak to code who by the way is the actual ENTP. Wozniak considered himself a people person (tertiary Fe). Steve jobs was notoriously bad with people and feelings and even got fired for it (inferior Fe). If steve jobs was ENTP where is his tertiary Fe? See you're already wrong I don't need to keep going. I could write you a 2 page list on all of steve job's ISTP qualities if I wanted to. Steve jobs is not the first ISTP visionary but that's enough for today.


This is probably a straw man, but we'll have to wait and see. His statement that ENTPs have vision doesn't imply that ISTPs do not. I have a hunch that your take on what he said was not what he was really saying. It didn't come across to me the way you interpreted it.




proto said:


> Actually yes intuitive dominants have no filter. It's the most obvious in ENTPs. ENTPs jump from idea to idea with no care for the validity or quality behind their ideas. They simply like the idea itself. The ideas have the control. This is what I call not having a filter because there is nothing saying which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. INTPs on the other hand do have a filter. They can sort through which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. ISTPs can also sort through which ideas are good and which ideas are bad with the addition of being checked against reality for practicality (Se). ENTPs have vision alright but it's usually terrible nonsensical vision that has no connection to reality. So yes including yourself you have no filter. Which is why you can type steve jobs as an ENTP with no real evidence behind it.



What you call "having no filter" sounds to me like Jung's depiction of _passive thinking_ or as he calls it, _intuitive thinking_.

Jung, on thinking:



> Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection. It is an *apperceptive activity* and, as such, must be differentiated into _active and passive thought-activity. _Active thinking is an act of will, passive thinking an occurrence. In the former case, I submit the representation to a deliberate act of judgment; *in the latter case, conceptual connections establish themselves, and judgments are formed which may even contradict my aim—they may lack all harmony with my conscious objective, hence also, for me, any feeling of direction, although by an act of active apperception I may subsequently come to a recognition of their directedness.
> 
> *... The term 'thinking' should, in my view, be confined to the linking up of representations by means of a concept...
> 
> ... The faculty of directed thinking, I term _intellect_: the faculty of passive, or undirected, thinking, I term *intellectual intuition.* Furthermore, I describe directed thinking or intellect as the _rational (q.v.)_ function, since it arranges the representations under concepts in accordance with the presuppositions of my conscious rational norm. Undirected thinking, or intellectual intuition, on the contrary is, in my view, an _irrational (q.v.)_ function, since it criticizes and arranges the representations according to norms that are unconscious to me and consequently not appreciated as reasonable. *In certain cases, however, I may recognize subsequently that the intuitive act of judgment also corresponds with reason, although it has come about in a way that appears to me irrational.*



Jung, on apperception:



> Is a psychic process by which a new content is articulated to similar already-existing contents in such a way as to be understood, apprehended, or clear [9]. We discriminate _active_ from _passive_ apperception; the former is a process by which the subject of himself, from his own motives, consciously and attentively apprehends a new content and assimilates it to another content standing in readiness; *the latter is a process in which a new content from without (through the senses) or from within (from the unconscious) presses through into consciousness and, to a certain extent, compels attention and apprehension upon itself.* In the former case, the accent of activity lies with the ego; in the latter, with the obtruding new content.



For the sake of clarity, Jung on ego:



> By ego, I understand a complex of representations which constitutes the centrum of my field of consciousness and appears to possess a very high degree of continuity and identity.



We can take what Jung is saying here and begin to piece together a very clear picture.

1. Thinking is apperceptive.
2. Intuitive thinking is undirected but may correspond with reason.
3. When intuition is dominant, it is part of the ego.
4. If intuition is part of the ego, then most of the time I am conscious of it by choice.
5. When I am conscious of my intuitive thinking by choice, I am apperceiving (linking to a concept) the information within my own unconscious.




proto said:


> Actually my analysis is accurate. Ti by definition is an analytic function. Ni is not. All you are doing is spewing garbage Ni theories that haven't been checked against reality.


This is false. It is in fact _you_ who are spewing garbage about Ni.

There is nothing in Jungian literature that discounts intuition as a viable form of analysis. As _Jung himself_ made it clear above, at best all we can say about intuitive thinking is that if it arrives at an analysis of something through apperception of it, it does so in an irrational way. But, this does not mean the analysis itself is unreasonable. It may very well be correct.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Woah, bro. INTJs have a penchant for strategy that no other type can equal. They also have more than their fair share of flaws.

Just play to your strengths and don't be butthurt. Suck it up.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

kev said:


> yeah. it's quite obvious, INFP's are the master strategists. I thought the world of MBTI consensually agreed on this?


lol I love this


----------



## Unfey (Apr 8, 2013)

INFPs are clearly the master strategists. Our strategy? Don't have a plan. See how things go. Done! No more planning! It's the master strategy!


----------



## Zuflex (Sep 6, 2014)

don't want to stirr things up, but there is a big difference between being able to think long term and being a strategist. 

Forget about the book-definition. Philosophers use a nice system to find out what a word means. They see if it is possible to combine noun and adjective where the adjective is the opposite of part of the meaning of the noun. 

step 1: brake up 'long term strategic planning'

long term thinking: to think in such a way you see consequences in the future of present actions 

strategy user: knowing how to get to a wanted situation. 
- It need not be long term (a strategy not to go to your mother in law tomorrow), 
- can be repeatable (a strategy not to clean the dishes, as opposed to having a methode not to do the dishes)
- it need not be a plan (but is has several staps - a strategy might be developing 'on the spot' without knowing upfront all the steps), 
- it need not be a 'thinking' person (feelers are far more up to this kind of thing)

planning: decide what steps seem necessary or wanted to get to a specific situation. 

Step 2: And then the fun part begins: combine! What combination is nonsense?
long term planning
short term strategy
ad hoc planning
etc.


Bonus: stategy is about implementing; system thinking can be an anwer to a strategy question. Analysing what goes wrong = INTJ. I have an intuition that a good strategist must also be able to forsee and trigger human reaction to system changes. So I would opt for a team of two persons ;-) Or is that against the rules? :laughing:


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

This topic is a self fulfilling prophecy.

If INTJs were master strategists then not a single one would've responded to the thread.

Instead we have nine pages of wasted time and effort.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> This topic is a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> If INTJs were master strategists then not a single one would've responded to the thread.
> 
> Instead we have nine pages of wasted time and effort.


?? naw mayn I'm getting my post count up. This is a nifty thread. Keep it going!


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

emberfly said:


> ?? naw mayn I'm getting my post count up. This is a nifty thread. Keep it going!


I can't shake the feeling my limited time would be more productively spent elsewhere, even if all I wanted was to be entertained.

Henceforth, I leave the shenanigans to you, good sir.

Carpe noctem!


----------



## VinnyCrow (Oct 21, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> This topic is a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> If INTJs were master strategists then not a single one would've responded to the thread.
> 
> Instead we have nine pages of wasted time and effort.


I actually thought the exact same thing the moment I read the OP. :laughing:

It's not exactly a waste if you can't convince the person you're debating with, though. I knew that would happen, so I didn't directly address the argument, myself, but either way, you never know who else may benefit from something said, whether they learn something or simply appreciate it.


----------



## cyberghost (Oct 28, 2014)

This is something of an inflammatory thread, but I'm intrigued.

What even makes a master strategist in the first place? I think experience would play a far bigger role than type. What makes a good strategy likely varies depending on what exactly you're strategizing for. Even if we're talking about a contemporary military strategist, things like culture and access to resources can change the sort of strategizing you'd need to do dramatically. From what I can tell, boots on the ground is an afterthought compared to controlling infrastructure and information. (Well, if Sun Tzu is anything to go by, controlling information has always been an essential part of military strategy.)

Outside of the military...pretty much anything in life can benefit from a little strategizing. People need to figure out how to get through life, even if they're not explicitly making a living. Or maybe some of us just like strategy games a lot. It's interesting to consider how any combination of dominant/auxiliary functions might work together to make strategies. I'm not too well acquainted with how these work in practicality and I'm essentially posting to see if anyone else had thoughts on it.

I'm not much of a strategist, myself. I just like to sit in this cozy armchair and make postulations.


----------



## Nivrag (Oct 28, 2014)

Definitely not demi gods of strategy. More like gods of strategy.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

proto said:


> Actually yes intuitive dominants have no filter. It's the most obvious in ENTPs. ENTPs jump from idea to idea with no care for the validity or quality behind their ideas. They simply like the idea itself. The ideas have the control. This is what I call not having a filter because there is nothing saying which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. INTPs on the other hand do have a filter. They can sort through which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. ISTPs can also sort through which ideas are good and which ideas are bad with the addition of being checked against reality for practicality (Se). ENTPs have vision alright but it's usually terrible nonsensical vision that has no connection to reality. So yes including yourself you have no filter. Which is why you can type steve jobs as an ENTP with no real evidence behind it.


What you have tried to supply here is a differentiation between rational type and irrational type, and you have distinguished them by "filters their ideas," or "does not filter their ideas." Post us a quote from Jung that differentiates r/i by these (again) personality trait dichotomies. Have you ever noticed how little E_FJ filter their ideas? For some, very little. And that's because the lack efficient processing of Ti, not because they are a rational type which is further evidence that you are playing battleship with chess pieces/do not understand what a function is. And, that you are simply arguing that ISTP is a better type than INTJ, and now ENTP. 

You're basically arguing your type is better than others, using an unsupported argument to label others' issues with that argument as unsupported. I don't need any more proof of this than the OP, and the fact that no resource, MBTI or functional, will ever back you up on ISTP being a more strategic type than INTJ, or any other MBTI type. Your type isn't any better or worse than the other 15, and trying to justify that using function theory suited up as a more "substantiated" theory when you aren't defining the functions correctly from the get go is as good a use of my time as teaching calculus to a pig. If you want to talk about cognitive function models and how they relate to behavior traits, I'll do that. Bring a model to the table and we'll have a real discussion on whether strategy has anything to do with cognitive functions. 

Otherwise, you've spent a lot of time trying to justify something that has no support - by accusing others' criticism of not having support. Which is, to me, hilariously stupid. 



> Most of your personality traits come from your cognitive processes. They are one and the same.


No, they are fundamentally NOT. Personality traits do NOT come directly from cognitive functions, and cognitive functions and personality traits are NOT one in the same. If this is how you type, and I think it is how you type, everything you use as criteria for typing is unequivocally wrong. 

Firstly, cognitive functions are not proven real to this day, so I'm not sure how you see something that manifests in real life as coming from a theoretical/archetypal model that does not tangibly exist. Which was the failure of your OP that to me indicates the most that you haven't thought much about where these stereotypes are really coming from. 

Secondly, a cognitive function is, as we have discussed numerous times on this forum, an archetype of the way one receives and processes information. Se, to use one example, is NOT a different archetype as a dominant function than it is as an inferior function. It is the same archetypal process, received differently to varying degrees that we call, incorrectly, "strength," and indicated, also erroneously, as a percentage from an online test. Se is an archetype, the same archetype, in ALL function slots within a model, and even though they make no sense, also in a dom/auxil/tert stacking. 

A CF model needs three things, none of which are in the OP: CF's per Jung, 8 generic roles in the psyche, and various marriages between CF and role. A type is a product of these combinations. Behavioral traits are subjective qualities that are common to one OR MORE types, because or NOT because of a CF in a certain role.


----------



## proto (Oct 2, 2014)

Figure said:


> What you have tried to supply here is a differentiation between rational type and irrational type, and you have distinguished them by "filters their ideas," or "does not filter their ideas." Post us a quote from Jung that differentiates r/i by these (again) personality trait dichotomies. Have you ever noticed how little E_FJ filter their ideas? For some, very little. And that's because the lack efficient processing of Ti, not because they are a rational type which is further evidence that you are playing battleship with chess pieces/do not understand what a function is. And, that you are simply arguing that ISTP is a better type than INTJ, and now ENTP.
> 
> You're basically arguing your type is better than others, using an unsupported argument to label others' issues with that argument as unsupported. I don't need any more proof of this than the OP, and the fact that no resource, MBTI or functional, will ever back you up on ISTP being a more strategic type than INTJ, or any other MBTI type. Your type isn't any better or worse than the other 15, and trying to justify that using function theory suited up as a more "substantiated" theory when you aren't defining the functions correctly from the get go is as good a use of my time as teaching calculus to a pig. If you want to talk about cognitive function models and how they relate to behavior traits, I'll do that. Bring a model to the table and we'll have a real discussion on whether strategy has anything to do with cognitive functions.
> 
> ...


I don't know why you are trying to lecture me. You know less than me. You just tried to tell me steve jobs was an ENTP and got proven wrong. Your entire thought process is wrong and it's beyond fixing.


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Ha, I know this post wasn't intended to be funny, I had a nice laugh at it, no offense to the OP. I do sense a tad bit of jealousy. 

I really don't find istp all that great strategist, no offense to the istp, but that isn't necessarily their strength. They are great fact gatherers from what I know though, in a jeopardy match I think the istp would be superior, but something like a chess game, the istp wouldn't win. :/ At least I would not bet on them.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

proto said:


> Ni works like a processor. You input information into it and get a result. It's only as good as the information it has to work with. Te/Fi/Se are what provide Ni with the information it needs. If it doesn't have enough information it starts filling in the gaps and that's when you start getting bad results. Or if it's working with bad information in the first place you get bad results.


So then a estp's Ni would be more reliable then a infj's? Infj and intj will be most awesome at higher ages perhaps knowing stuffs from past life and have an entire world inside their Ni. The gaps gets smaller and your argument gets invalid.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

proto said:


> Intjs get hyped up on here like they are some kind of demi god strategist. I see them talk down to sensors like we are common men. Everyone buys into the hype and worships them and types every strategic character on tv an intj. This is simply not the case in reality. Let's deconstruct their functions.
> 
> Ni - A perceiving function that deals with patterns, impressions and thinks long term. Often getting getting involuntary bursts of insight. These bursts of insight are what make INTJs think they are so clever. But how accurate are these bursts of insight? With no filter on Ni these bursts of insight can be based on anything. This leads to things like paranoid nonsensical plots and plans with questionable practicality. Being able to think long term doesn't make someone a master strategist. You fail to see the present conditions of the battlefield. Somebody who is more dynamic than you can beat you in the short term. In fact only being able to focus on the long term is a weakness.
> 
> ...


I’m going to reply to this section, but I also noticed in the replies that you said that Te needs Se, and I would say that it’s not accurate with how you perceive the functional use of Se in INTJs. It would be more accurate to say that Ni needs Se in order to stay grounded. An inferior function doesn’t mean that you don’t use it, but rather it’s a process that works in the background (it’s more in the realm of the unconscious). Ni needs Se in order to stay in reality. Just because Ni is dominate, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have somewhat of a filter and that it doesn't use Se, because it has to!

The reason why INTJs are consider strategic is because of their use of Ni/Te.

Ni - Ni doesn't just come to an "ah ha!" moment, rather it's also very good at seeing where a system will lead by what I would like to call a process of elimination. It many ways, it works somewhat familiar to how Ti does, but instead of judging the information, it collects the information that it deems important to see the "big picture". All of the other information is just fluff and shouldn't or doesn't need to be accounted for.

Te - Te is very good at take present information and being able to process it, and when you add Ni to the mix, then you have an INTJ that will say, "Where is this going, what are the objective facts, and what can be done to make this work over a period of time?" INTJs aren't in the moment strategist, but rather long term strategist, and their plan is constantly being refined and improved with the use of Ni/Te as it gathers more information until eventually it gets an effective plan that works.



Bahburah said:


> I don't know.
> 
> I play Magic (the gathering) with my INTJ friend, and while I've noticed that Ti-Ne is great and almost better than him in finding better strategy in the moment, since Ti can adjust very well.
> 
> ...


^There is an example of what I was explaining.

Many people will say that INTPs, ISTPs, etc are more dynamic (Ne & Se), but Ni in theory isn't a static function. An INTJ may appear to be static and working on "one plan", but that one plan is very much fluid. It's being refined and changed to what would be considered effective or efficient with the provided information (Ni/Te).

---

Sorry to say, but Ti/Se just doesn't work this way, and I would much rather have somebody with a long-term plan than somebody who can only take the present moment and work with that.



> stra·te·gic
> 
> relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

I find that when I've done something really strategic, I wasn't necessarily set out to do it.

It's more like options made themselfs visible and I just manipulated them.


I'm always left in the "Holy fuck I'm a genius" kind of mood.

Yet they are far and few between, this is also the 1% of the time that even INTJs have to bow down to the INTP.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@proto I might not agree with profile guesses at the bottom of OP but I agree with you that INTJ glorification is a little bit skewed from reality on a forum like this. Not that INTJ individuals can't be something, not that I don't recognize qualities I like about INTJ. But search results show INTJ and INFP to command a large portion of Google search compared to other types. A space after that you could see volume of INFJ and ISFJ. I think this says something about an on-line subculture or trend. So you have a concentration of people who have found a type of haven in these forums.

Strategy, lots of different kinds of strategy, Ti is better for unique situations and fresh perspective - breaking new ground seeing the specific context.
One thing that used to bug me about an INTJ friend - they were quick to give out a canned answer, showing me how much they knew (formal training) - they didn't see that the question was not all about one thing, more a question of sequencing to deal best with a combination of factors. The basic formula for the main issue was obvious, the combination overall was where my thinking was - interconnected stuff that the context and timing mattered.

and - there is quite a range of ENTP's around here some of whom are happy to be non-strategic, and others who have been self employed and need strategy to stay alive etc.


----------



## Fleurelle (Oct 19, 2014)




----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Fleurelle :laughing::laughing:
So you think he's INTJ? I could see that, I was thinking maybe INFP.

INTJ - could be though. 

INTJ's think of themselves as being big-picture but they have no idea how much they operate from tunnel vision. What they think of as big picture is actually long range linear- not the same thing. They are long range thinkers - like produce the perfect prototype, or strip something to their own list of maintainable essentials. They cannot comprehend that Big-picture is not all linear. They might think they know how to do politics but have no sense of who other people are because they de-prioritize Ne and Fe. The low priority of Se means they miss new or situational information or opportunities that could change everything, or they miss how a physical reality impacts other people. Discrediting what other people see can have practical damage for a big picture.

ENTJ's manage to compensate for low Fe because Te and Se directed with some Ni - can step in for Fe to some extent.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Fleurelle said:


>


Obama is ENTP nothing is ever an entp's fault


----------



## Fleurelle (Oct 19, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> @Fleurelle :laughing::laughing:
> So you think he's INTJ? I could see that, I was thinking maybe INFP.
> 
> INTJ - could be though.
> ...


You mean, do I think Obama's an INTJ? Hardly :laughing: it was just a funny meme lol. Google "Thanks Obama," it's pretty good



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Obama is ENTP nothing is ever an entp's fault


Ain't that the truth :laughing:


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I think the opposite is true about ENTP. One of the things I noticed in ENTP forum was the ability for people to be honest with themselves about who they are. Bravado comments aside (which maybe I don't do because I'm older) is one thing - but if someone tells you something about yourself that might not be good to hear, the ENTP can say yes this is true. ENTP can recognize failing at something without it being a crusher because Ti is not being self and other evaluative.

What we are not good at without some effort, - Is making other people feel like they have been heard. We can see many contributing factors to a situation and want to consider all of it. *What People don't see is that our Ti alone time, is where we weigh feedback and think about ways we can do better next time. *Entp's would know that passing the buck is a bad idea for a speech or press release though.

@Fleurelle seeing the picture and the thread headline - I made the connection I made and thought your post was funny and clever. Wasn't trying turn this into political debate or anything.


----------



## fuzzywuzzy123 (Nov 9, 2014)

I've played board games with ISTPs and even as they "teach me" the new game, I'm able to take them out (unless there is an ENTP playing then I'll settle for second place). ISTPs strategy is based on sensing "What they see/hear" from the person's faces or actions and estimate based on that. Playing strategy games is not the same as guessing such as a Poker game which ISTPs do well in as well as looking at faces. But, that's not strategy.

I have no qualms with ISTPs, they are good assistants to me when I request them to resolve issues and are ideal as temporary chat mates.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Infj are the master strategist! Unless its boring stuffs, then intj is the master strategist.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@Captain Mclain if being a cult leader is strategy, which I think it is or can be, then yes INFJ's are the master strategists!
Seriously, a lot can be done with gathering, uniting, motivating and directing minions. One way this is done is by writing management books. If you're good, you can change the world that way; even if it just a shift or a movement it can accomplish more than a war or a new item type product.


----------



## Zenobia Kael (Sep 16, 2014)

i think i have something to add.

im borderline INTJ INTP. my best friend is ISTP. when i started at FPS i SUCKED horribly at them, but i continued playing against him till the point where both of us are _scary _good. he is better at it then me but i can still keep up quite well. (tactics are better in FPS.) ive taught him RTS games. and he is almost as good at it as me. but he is more short sighted are more likely to go on a suicide run that held short term benefits that he saw given the current information in front of him (Se) that ultimately cuase him to fail because he will lose focus on a long term plan which is what usually gets him killed. this isn't to say there aren't times when he beats me. he does. its just not as often as me beating him.

at the end of the day in a military situation BOTH parties are necessary. a good strategist. not necessarily INTJ but most likely intj or entj will be in this position. For example, general MacArthur was an ENTJ and _literal _example of a field marshal. but they need good tacticians and a damn good tactician(s) for achieving the long term goals set by the intj/entj. they _need_ each other. if i could have sub commanders in RTS games im going to hands down pick my istp friend so he can deal with what's the immediate threat while i move resources toward a long term goal.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I think INTJs are illustrated as master strategists because they're more determined to achieve specific goals than many of the other types. Goals are key to strategy, and simply 'winning' isn't a clear goal... therein they have Te to organise and measure which goals are important, and which are irrelevant. Fi gives decisiveness; technical precision can be a distraction in grand strategy, and their intuition works in the blanks. The results are often crude, but they get the job done I guess.


----------



## Sophia1 (Oct 7, 2014)

Interesting. I am ENTJ, but a very close INTJ... very light on the E side of things since on most tests I only land 55-60% E... 
ENTJ's and INTJ's I personally believe are mind-mates, soul-mates, life mates, battle mates etc. I get along with INTJs/ENTJs probably the best, but I know in a harmonious long lasting relationship, ENTJ-ENTJ may be too... extreme.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

This is true. ISTPs are Gods.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Ghostsoul said:


> I think any type can be the 'Master Strategist'.


I facepalmed.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Strategically speaking, inferior Se means the INTJ hone in only on very specific pieces of perceived external info - the pieces that seem to create a puzzle. It's very selective, but also hard coded to see what's important. So that is the strategic value - discerning what seems most important in the here and now, and ignoring irrelevant information. This is why they are almost always "zoomed out" on situations.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

lackofmops said:


> I facepalmed.


So only certain types can be 'master strategics' even if the other types want to be?


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Ghostsoul said:


> So only certain types can be 'master strategics' even if the other types want to be?


Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

This whole thread has based itself off the incorrect premise that strategy and tactics are the same thing. They aren't. I would expect an xSTP or xNTP to tend more towards tactics and xNTJs and xSTJs to tend more towards strategy. This isn't set in stone, and it doesn't state how proficient someone will be (that's entirely up to the individual) but it is a decent enough vague generalization that seems in contact with the spirit of this post.

As for the assertion that INTJs lack contact with reality, that's also suspect. While I have noticed Ni in its most unhealthy form to be the "paranoid function" or "conspiracy function", Te SHOULD be stopping those sorts of thoughts in their tracks before our hypothetical Ni user gets their own late night talk show.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

lackofmops said:


> Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.


Then stop talking to me.


----------



## Zuflex (Sep 6, 2014)

Rebelgoatalliance said:


> This whole thread has based itself off the incorrect premise that strategy and tactics are the same thing.


damn, so sexy when someone uses the word 'premisse'. And he continues with defining the used terms. Even when it's an ENTJ writing it :laughing:


----------



## Astral (Dec 8, 2014)

Zenobia Kael said:


> im borderline INTJ INTP. my best friend is ISTP. when i started at FPS i SUCKED horribly at them, but i continued playing against him till the point where both of us are _scary _good. he is better at it then me but i can still keep up quite well. (tactics are better in FPS.) ive taught him RTS games. and he is almost as good at it as me. but he is more short sighted are more likely to go on a suicide run that held short term benefits that he saw given the current information in front of him (Se) that ultimately cuase him to fail because he will lose focus on a long term plan which is what usually gets him killed. this isn't to say there aren't times when he beats me. he does. its just not as often as me beating him..


When I play games a lot of the time I say "fuck it" and just go for it cause it's just a game and I wanna have fun. Maybe he is the same way. 
I think when I do this it activate my feeling part, I become happier. 
It's much more fun for me to make it super quick paced. Then if I die I can try all the different approches I can sense until I find one that will work. Usually I will have a teammate but i like to go lone wolf. 
I guess I play more of an aggresive support role. Like flanking or suppressing fire from a different angle to help pinned friendlies escape an area.

idk im spewing thoughts to get my post count up 8^)


----------



## Balistik (Nov 12, 2012)

proto said:


> Being able to think long term doesn't make someone a master strategist. You fail to see the present conditions of the battlefield. Somebody who is more dynamic than you can beat you in the short term.


You're clearly confusing strategy and tactics. Being able to react quickly to present conditions is useful, but it also makes you more likely to fall into traps since you're more focused on reacting to what's happening rather than analyzing it. A bull reacts very dynamically when the matador shakes the cloth, and he can sometimes kill the matador, but the matador wins most of the time.



proto said:


> Te - Good for organizing and managing information. Not exactly a strategic function unless you are interested in becoming a master organizer. Ti has more depth and is craftier than Te. Te has problems thinking independently of the group often unsure of unproven things. Te often uses existing information or steals from competitors. Te has problems with originality.


How is the ability to organize information in a logical and efficient manner not useful for strategy? A good strategy is a plan made up of a series of steps that are organized logically and efficiently. A cognitive function cannot be craftier than another. Te has nothing to do with being dependent on the group, the main difference between Ti and Te is the inward/outward focus. Te is focused on the outer world (like a battlefield for example), while Ti is focused on the inner world (thoughts and ideas).



proto said:


> Ti: A very systematic function. They can deconstruct a battlefield into all it's systematic parts. They have a complete conscious understanding of everything happening from top to bottom. They know what parts of the system are weak for exploiting. Ti is a very clever and crafty function you never know what a Ti user is thinking or planning. Unlike Te Ti can think independently of the group. Ti is also very good at analyzing information accurately and pointing out flaws.


Except that Ti is not focused on external systems, like I just said above. A strong Te user is good at deconstructing a battlefield into its systemic parts, a strong Ti user is good at deconstructing their own thoughts and ideas about battlefields into systemic parts.



proto said:


> Fe: With feelings last in their stack it gives istps the heartlessness to execute on their plans. Even though intjs don't want to admit it they have deep feelings and morals. Which are not signs of a good strategist. Feelings have no place in strategy.


Notice how you just describe Fe as "feelings", while you made the distinction between Te and Ti. Fe is very specific as well, it's about seeking harmonious relationships with others, doing what the group considers appropriate. Even though it's an inferior function in ISTPs, they are more concerned with the group than INTJs are. Not so heartless after all.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

lol he's gone. Just let it go...


----------



## DerProfessor (Aug 28, 2014)

I think the mastermind label is accurate for INTJs.

The mistake people make, is to assume that anybody who is heavily into the hard sciences or anybody proficient in a technical field, MUST be an INTJ. I know world-class programmers who are ENFPs, even Ss. As an INTJ I was never intrigued by programming, physics, chemistry, or mathematics (5w4 here). 

However, recently I've been helping to drive the alternative crypto-currency movement from a high strategic level, where I have been successfully implementing my visions into reality. I don't need to be a programmer to do that, and I don't want to be famous for it. But I know what my capabilities are and I doubt many Ss would be able to do what I do.


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

@lackofmops's posts actually killed me


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

DerProfessor said:


> I think the mastermind label is accurate for INTJs.
> 
> The mistake people make, is to assume that anybody who is heavily into the hard sciences or anybody proficient in a technical field, MUST be an INTJ. *I know world-class programmers who are ENFPs*, even Ss. As an INTJ I was never intrigued by programming, physics, chemistry, or mathematics (5w4 here).
> 
> However, recently I've been helping to drive the alternative crypto-currency movement from a high strategic level, where I have been successfully implementing my visions into reality. I don't need to be a programmer to do that, and I don't want to be famous for it. But I know what my capabilities are and I doubt many Ss would be able to do what I do.


i don't get what point you were trying to prove with the part i bolded, to be honest. do you have any idea how much potential dominant Ne users have? couple that with a well-developed Te and you're dealing with an unstoppable mental force


----------

