TP v. TJ

[Nick]

Would you agree with this:


TP: Combs information for the top best sources of verification to make sure truth is true(A,B,C), but also spends an indefinite amount of time more analyzing each topic (A,B,C) into (A,123;B,123;C,123) and if we need to go further then (A,1,(XYZ,XYX,XYY… you get the picture. We dig and digress, we can explain everything in-depth and this is why we understand how systems work and are designed.

TJ: Do the same as us but only to the level of (A,B,C), agrees 100% with the populous poll and MOVES ON,. Where we will sit and dig dig dig, they digress and continue to their next task, absorbing only the top layer of information.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, it's known as the directive vs informative style. The goals for each style are different.

 

[Red myst]

I think it is the P nature and especially the NP nature to want to explore and exhaust all options while seeking closure. Weather it is T based closure or F based closure is of less relevance. J types using Ni or Si reduce down to their conclusions more quickly because of their more convergent nature.



Sent from my Encore using Tapatalk

 

[Brontosaurie]

I think it is the P nature and especially the NP nature to want to explore and exhaust all options while seeking closure. Weather it is T based closure or F based closure is of less relevance. J types using Ni or Si reduce down to their conclusions more quickly because of their more convergent nature.



Sent from my Encore using Tapatalk

could it be said that P types seek convergence and perfection of inner conclusions/decisions, through exhaustion of options, while J types seek to shape the world in the mold of their already convergent and perfect inner ideal, with conclusions/decisions (contextual/perceptual as well as performative or directive, i guess) being arbitrary tools in this pursuit, thus making J types more eager for closure (and preferably the upper hand) in any given situation and P types on the other hand more closure oriented larger scale with deeply held axioms that are more inflexible, although typically witheld from direct involvement because they are also always felt to be a draft, an experiment, a foetus, something in development.

maybe i said obvious things in a convoluted way, sry.

 

[Cherry Cola]

NTJs understand a given system by understanding systems in general, NTPs understand systems by understanding specific systems. Hence why NTJs aren't as detail oriented, they don't need to be.

I think it's the NTJs that are closure oriented on a large scale. All n-types are large scale oriented in a sense because the abstract is common whereas the specific is not. But it's Ni that strives to gradually build upon a one grand system for understanding, processing the world through this system in order for it to make sense.

 

[OmoInisa]

NTJs understand a given system by understanding systems in general, NTPs understand systems by understanding specific systems. Hence why NTJs aren't as detail oriented, they don't need to be.

I think it's the NTJs that are closure oriented on a large scale. All n-types are large scale oriented in a sense because the abstract is common whereas the specific is not. But it's Ni that strives to gradually build upon a one grand system for understanding, processing the world through this system in order for it to make sense.

True. However it should probably come with the qualifier that this applies to external systems. It could validly be turned around to say the same about NTPs when concerned with internal systems. Ti and Ni (or more precisely, Ti-Ne and Ni-Te) are much the same in this. As has been mentioned before, this is the essence of the J/P difference.

 

[QuickTwist]

could it be said that P types seek convergence and perfection of inner conclusions/decisions, through exhaustion of options, while J types seek to shape the world in the mold of their already convergent and perfect inner ideal, with conclusions/decisions (contextual/perceptual as well as performative or directive, i guess) being arbitrary tools in this pursuit, thus making J types more eager for closure (and preferably the upper hand) in any given situation and P types on the other hand more closure oriented larger scale with deeply held axioms that are more inflexible, although typically witheld from direct involvement because they are also always felt to be a draft, an experiment, a foetus, something in development.

maybe i said obvious things in a convoluted way, sry.

No I think you're on to something, but it seems like you have a preference for P over J. No type is "better." They are both quite smart in their own way. Now if you were to ask who is more open I would say it depends on the individual and what they are open to.

@OP, I don't know for sure, but it looks like the TPs tend to have more mental masturbation going on in your description.

 

[Cherry Cola]

True. However it should probably come with the qualifier that this applies to external systems. It could validly be turned around to say the same about NTPs when concerned with internal systems. Ti and Ni (or more precisely, Ti-Ne and Ni-Te) are much the same in this. As has been mentioned before, this is the essence of the J/P difference.

Yeah, Ni is the internal system building function not Ne, but Je and Ji come along and balance it out. So, how to distinguish between the two? Having them be much the same isn't very satisfying :P

 

[OmoInisa]

Yeah, Ni is the internal system building function not Ne, but Je and Ji come along and balance it out. So, how to distinguish between the two? Having them be much the same isn't very satisfying :P

Hmm. Yes. The classic tail-chasing trap. It would be false if I claimed I had a firm and final hold on the issue. But let's see.
I'll start by suggesting that the things that the INTJ is in the external world, the INTP is in the internal world, and vice versa. This effect is caused by them sharing the same functions, but with opposite attitudes. The fact that the hierarchy of perceprion and judgement is switched also adds to the effect of them being a mirror of each other in this sense. It means that they are both dominant introverts, and so their concerns are fundamentally the same (as opposed to a comparison of the INTP with the ENTJ, who might ordinarily be expected to be more of a mirror). Another way to say this might be that the temperament of the INTP and INTJ is essentially the same, but in opppsite orientations. The INTP uses an intuitive understanding from the outside to build an internal system, and the INTJ uses an intuitive understanding from the inside to build an external system.

The second point I would make is that I think there is a crossover point, where the INTP and the INTJ meet each other. So when you're looking to organise and systrmatise some abstract system, ideally you want an INTP to take it in hand. Conversely if some factual system needs organising and sysematising, an INTJ is ideal. Then there is a continuum between a purely abstract system and a 'physical', factual one.

 

[Oddity]

The second point I would make is that I think there is a crossover point, where the INTP and the INTJ meet each other. So when you're looking to organise and systrmatise some abstract system, ideally you want an INTP to take it in hand. Conversely if some factual system needs organising and sysematising, an INTJ is ideal. Then there is a continuum between a purely abstract system and a 'physical', factual one.

We usually want nothing to do with the other.

 

[OmoInisa]

We usually want nothing to do with the other.

Hmm. Well I wouldn't put it thay way. The two are actually quite drawn to each other. But I get your point. INTJs and INTPs are like ships passing in the night. A lot of the time it's a case of 'so close, and yet so far'. Socionics quite accurately calls them quasi-identicals.
The magic happens at that moment when they actually see each other. They don't need to touch. So that moment should be cherished and made use of.

I think many people of either type who have close friends/partners of the other type will attest to the powerful intellectual gravitational pull of the interaction. They'll probably also recognise the frustration of that 'quasi-identical' phenomenon.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

There is no strong functional similarities among MBTI TJ and TP types. They merely either have a Je/Pi function or a Pe/Ji function, you could find contextual significance within these groups but any conclusion you make about them will not be equally valid for each type. You call IxTJ/ExTJ directive, but NiTe and SiTe are lead by aimless perception functions.

The more substantial difference is found among Thinking Rationals(Te/Ti dom) vs T Irrationals(Te/Ti aux).