What is the difference between INTP and ENTP

[Tannhauser]

When I read an ENTP profile description, I cannot shake the feeling that there is really no difference between an INTP and ENTP. It seems almost like an INTP as simply the ENTP with a character flaw -- a slightly less sociable version. Or that INTPs and ENTPs are simply one type in different modes, and that one can be one or the other dependent on one's mood, circumstances, recent experiences.

Thoughts

 

[Teax]

Let me explicitly state "for the record": The first letter merely changes the order of the cognitive functions, but the axis stay the same. So xNTP have the same core functions and the resulting personality necessarily will have some major similarities.

INTP: Ti Ne Si Fe
ENTP: Ne Ti Fe Si

Secondly: ENTPs do not have to be sociable. Ne dominance merely states that you fall back to observing the external world by default or something like that, but not necessarily people. This actually led me to believe that many self-proclaimed INTPs are actually shy ENTPs.

So by comparison: An immature ENTP will be like a more charming but also more scatterbrained version of an INTP, with inferior reasoning skills because of less exposure to Ti. They will be more prone to asking irrelevant and random questions and not being able to answer them. They will have trouble with math/logic despite claiming to be logically grounded.

On the other hand a mature ENTP will have a developed Ti, and an inferior Si in favor of Fe, making them into a more caring version of INTPs. But how to differentiate the two? No idea... My guess is INTPs with their Si>Fe should be about what works, what's real, inconvenient truths... while ENTPs would be willing to make compromises in the name of their perceived fairness.... Maybe people who claim to have a residual "sense of justice" could be ENTPs?

That is the way I see it atm. Was one of my favorite subjects when researching MBTI but actually I still am not 100% sure how to reason about P dominant behavior, although people have been very helpful in this thread.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

ENTP's dominant Ne means their dom is focuses externally, so most of their energy is external. I had a hard time determining if I was ENTP because INTPs have to use Ne to interact with the outer world. Although we use Ti a ton, we clearly have to use Ne too.

My conclusion was the ENTP's focus is PRIMARILY external, meaning, they aren't in their heads 50% of the time, they're in their heads a lot more than that. INTPs have the task of interacting with the external world which can pull from Ti, making it hard to determine if they really are INTPs because of how much time they spend externally.

I would argue that ENTPs are more similar to ENFPs than INTPs. Ne dom is all about, not the statement, or how it was said, but the 10 different meanings behind that statement. Ne simultaneously is telling the ENTP every possible meaning behind the statement and which one is most likely correct. INTPs use Ne as an intermediary to interact with the world, but over that, they use it to scout out all the data for a certain argument, with Ti primarily being used to work through the argument.

ENTP's Ne: Check out every possible way of doing things
ENTP's Ti: Check for consistency in these possibilities/ check possibilities in a rational manner

INTP's Ne: Scout out all data for an argument
INTP's Ti: Work with the data to determine what the truth is.

Also, notice the battle is a completely different one. ENTP's have Fe third, meaning they can find value in each idea Ne comes up with to drive it towards completion or towards use.
They have Si third, which means that they have trouble developing a picture of something over time, or remembering previous methods. Their battle is with accepting how things are, and with others accepting what is invalid or dogmatic.

INTP's have Si third, which means they work to develop an understanding of concepts, and form pictures of things over time. Si feeds Ti, meaning Si is kind of like the kitchen for Ti to cook in. Si has all the cupboards full of data and Ti can stew up whatever idea it wants with that information.
They have Fe fourth, which means they have no clear sense of value. Their battle is with determining what is worth working towards, or in a sense they are aimless and directionless.

 

[Brontosaurie]

ENTP's suck more at building their life. Erase everything, get existential about whether to clean the desk or not and postpone it for six months, wonder if the mold farm on your broken plate is art or not, don't ever bother with anything, just skip around and alternate between frustration and wonder. Make a thousand promises that can't or won't be kept. Be sure you'll get something done and then you've forgotten it and let someone down five minutes later. Think that this problem will sort itself out but run into the same mess over and over again. Sure, it's a cooler weakness than social ineptitude but a significant weakness nonetheless.

ENTP is more accommodating and INTP is more reliable.

I suspect many self-proclaimed INTP's are mistyped ENTP's. This happens because ENTP's are way more introverted and above all introspective, especially in youth, than the common concept of "extraversion" would imply. Similarly, many self-proclaimed ENTP's are actually ESxP's or ENTJ's or ExFJ's. Being at the real frontier of weird possibilities and novel perspectives is a lonely pain in the ass. Everything is questioned. You don't get to be cool or powerful or important unless you are severely traumatized or something just finally snaps and you backlash by definitively morphing into the inner ruthless suit-and-tie demi-god, exerting the weirdest covertly psychopathic invisible vengeance (aka comedian). One day...

[egocentrism disclaimer]

 

[JimJambones]

I'm an ENTP and not very sociable, or at least not until I know or trust the person well enough. I consider myself more of an introvert. ENTP logic isn't turned on all the time like the INTP. So, an ENTP constantly feels like they have to reexplain what they said because the INTP takes what they said more literally, except when the ENTP really wants to debate, then they look even more similar. ENTPs leave out even more logical steps and explanations than INTPs, who expect people to "just get it".

ENTPs don't even know what they mean half the time they say half the things they really meant to say. We really don't take much seriously. We can, but generally like things to be light.

 

[Jennywocky]

.... Ne dom is all about, not the statement, or how it was said, but the 10 different meanings behind that statement. Ne simultaneously is telling the ENTP every possible meaning behind the statement and which one is most likely correct. INTPs use Ne as an intermediary to interact with the world, but over that, they use it to scout out all the data for a certain argument, with Ti primarily being used to work through the argument.

ENTP's Ne: Check out every possible way of doing things
ENTP's Ti: Check for consistency in these possibilities/ check possibilities in a rational manner

INTP's Ne: Scout out all data for an argument
INTP's Ti: Work with the data to determine what the truth is.

ENTP's suck more at building their life. Erase everything, get existential about whether to clean the desk or not and postpone it for six months, wonder if the mold farm on your broken plate is art or not, don't ever bother with anything, just skip around and alternate between frustration and wonder. Make a thousand promises that can't or won't be kept. Be sure you'll get something done and then you've forgotten it and let someone down five minutes later. Think that this problem will sort itself out but run into the same mess over and over again. Sure, it's a cooler weakness than social ineptitude but a significant weakness nonetheless.

ENTP is more accommodating and INTP is more reliable.

I'm an ENTP and not very sociable, or at least not until I know or trust the person well enough. I consider myself more of an introvert. ENTP logic isn't turned on all the time like the INTP. So, an ENTP constantly feels like they have to reexplain what they said because the INTP takes what they said more literally, except when the ENTP really wants to debate, then they look even more similar. ENTPs leave out even more logical steps and explanations than INTPs, who expect people to "just get it".

ENTPs don't even know what they mean half the time they say half the things they really meant to say. We really don't take much seriously. We can, but generally like things to be light.

^^ All that.

I've had to learn not to read too much into ENTP comments; we can connect in a discussion, but it almost sets me up to misinterpret something because I attribute more purpose to or ideas behind it than intended. I find there's more general "friendliness," where I tend to contact someone more if I have a specific reason behind it and sometimes feel weird just saying hello on the fly without any reason. (Maybe that's your Fe in 3rd vs 4th position.)

I think INTP is more deliberate, ENTP is more "generate a response."

If you want to think about the direction of energy flow, you get INTP = Internal -> External -> Internal, and ENTP = External -> Internal -> External. In an example of throwing rocks into a lake, the INTP gets an idea about what might happen if a rock is thrown at a certain spot, throws the rock, then records the results to either expand or shoot down their idea. Meanwhile, ENTP throws a rock somewhere in the lake, gets an "oh cool!" reaction or "Hmm, not much happened" outcome, and based on that will toss another rock. Original focus is inward for INTP and outward for ENTP. You can't say each type is exclusively about understanding or creating responses, but in general ENTP wants to understand in order to generate the more desired response and INTP generates a response in order to understand.

With the typical range within MBTI types, of course, you can have overlap between type behaviors depending on how introverted or extroverted the individual is and how focused they want to be.

 

[Analyzer]

I agree. From reading descriptions and the functions they can seem very similar. And a INTP might feel like a ENTP one day depending on their mood, interest, and vice versa.

I really think though it just comes down to if you see yourself as an introvert or extrovert. Reckful had a good post before from Jung:

Spoiler

From the Introduction to Psychological Types:

[Extraverts and introverts] are so different and present such a striking contrast that their existence becomes quite obvious even to the layman once it has been pointed out. Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.​

From Psychological Typology, a 1936 article:

[The introvert] holds aloof from external happenings, does not join in, has a distinct dislike of society as soon as he finds himself among too many people. In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. ... He is not in the least "with it," and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. He is apt to appear awkward, often seeming inhibited, and it frequently happens that, by a certain brusqueness of manner, or by his glum unapproachability, or some kind of malapropism, he causes unwitting offence to people. His better qualities he keeps to himself, and generally does everything he can to dissemble them. He is easily mistrustful, self-willed, often suffers from inferiority feelings and for this reason is also envious. His apprehensiveness of the object is not due to fear, but to the fact that it seems to him negative, demanding, overpowering or even menacing. He therefore suspects all kinds of bad motives, has an everlasting fear of making a fool of himself, is usually very touchy and surrounds himself with a barbed wire entanglement so dense and impenetrable that finally he himself would rather do anything than sit behind it. ...

For him self-communings are a pleasure. His own world is a safe harbour, a carefully tended and walled-in garden, closed to the public and hidden from prying eyes. His own company is the best. He feels at home in his world, where the only changes are made by himself. His best work is done with his own resources, on his own initiative, and in his own way. ...

His relations with other people become warm only when safety is guaranteed, and when he can lay aside his defensive distrust. All too often he cannot, and consequently the number of friends and acquaintances is very restricted.​

From Chapter 6 of Psychological Types:

The [introvert's] personality seems inhibited, absorbed or distracted, "sunk in thought," intellectually lopsided, or hypochondriacal. In every case there is only a meagre participation in external life and a distinct tendency to solitude and fear of other people, often compensated by a special love of animals or plants. ...

The [introvert's] sudden explosions [of emotion], alternating with defensiveness and periods of taciturnity, can give the personality such a bizarre appearance that such people become an enigma to everyone in their vicinity. Their absorption in themselves leaves them at a loss when presence of mind or swift action is demanded. Embarrassing situations often arise from which there seems no way out—one reason the more for shunning society. Moreover the occasional outbursts of affect play havoc with their relations to others, and, because of their embarrassment and helplessness, they feel incapable of retrieving the situation. This awkwardness in adapting leads to all sorts of unfortunate experiences which inevitably produce a feeling of inferiority or bitterness, and even of hatred that is readily directed at those who were the actual or supposed authors of their misfortunes. ... They have a peculiar emotional sensitivity, revealing itself to the outside world as a marked timidity and uneasiness in the face of emotional stimuli, and in all situations that might evoke them. This touchiness is directed primarily against the emotional conditions in their environment. All brusque expressions of opinion, emotional declarations, playing on the feelings, etc., are avoided from the start, prompted by the subject's fear of his own emotion, which in turn might start off a reverberating impression he might not be able to master. This sensitivity may easily develop over the years into melancholy, due to the feeling of being cut off from life.​

From the above-mentioned 1936 article:

Extraversion is characterized by interest in the external object, responsiveness, and a ready acceptance of external happenings, a desire to influence and be influenced by events, a need to join in and get "with it," the capacity to endure bustle and noise of every kind, and actually find them enjoyable, constant attention to the surrounding world, the cultivation of friends and acquaintances, none too carefully selected, and finally by the great importance attached to the figure one cuts, and hence by a strong tendency to make a show of oneself. Accordingly, the extravert's philosophy of life and his ethics are as a rule of a highly collective nature with a strong streak of altruism, and his conscience is in large measure dependent on public opinion. Moral misgivings arise mainly when "other people know." His religious convictions are determined, so to speak, by majority vote. ...

The disinclination to submit his own motives to critical examination is very pronounced. He has no secrets he has not long since shared with others. Should something unmentionable nevertheless befall him, he prefers to forget it. Anything that might tarnish the parade of optimism and positivism is avoided. Whatever he thinks, intends, and does is displayed with conviction and warmth. ...

The psychic life of this type of person is enacted, as it were, outside himself, in the environment. He lives in and through others; all self-communings give him the creeps. Dangers lurk there which are better drowned out by noise. If he should ever have a "complex," he finds refuge in the social whirl and allows himself to be assured several times a day that everything is in order. Provided he is not too much of a busybody, too pushing, and too superficial, he can be a distinctly useful member of the community.​

 

[zerkalo]

ENTP's suck more at building their life. Erase everything, get existential about whether to clean the desk or not and postpone it for six months, wonder if the mold farm on your broken plate is art or not, don't ever bother with anything, just skip around and alternate between frustration and wonder. Make a thousand promises that can't or won't be kept. Be sure you'll get something done and then you've forgotten it and let someone down five minutes later. Think that this problem will sort itself out but run into the same mess over and over again.

....its scary how spot on this is for me
if thats what entp is like then im most probably one

 

[Yellow]

It seems almost like an INTP as simply the ENTP with a character flaw

This is why I decided I was an ENTP, not an INTP. I'm flawless.

More seriously, all the other posts make sense.

But I don't think INTP and ENTP are on a spectrum. If I still hold any "give a damn" about MBTI, I think it's here. Types seem to be distinct. Like with Plato's ideals, individuals vary, but they still belong to a single mold. Of course, I lack conviction to really back up my statement. At the moment, this is more of a vague sense of how things are.

I don't think a person can become another type. You can be wrong about yourself or others, though. I know I was perhaps too focused on the four letters. I'm introverted by nature. Ergo, I must be an introvert, right? Apparently, wrong. I dunno.

ENTPs seem to be more genuinely open-minded than INTPs. But I don't think it's idealism or generosity of thought that leads to the open-mindedness. It seems to be intricately entwined with a distaste for bullshit. INTPs are more likely to accept a pile of crap if it sits well with them. ENTPs don't seem to allow even themselves that much indulgence.

On the other hand, INTPs are more likely to follow an idea through to the end (not a task, mind you), whereas an ENTP will get skim ahead to see if it's worthwhile. I think that was another thing that pointed me to ENTP. The skimming.

Why, when you have the mental capacity to see a multitude of possibilities, would you bother following just one at a time? It's madness. Why entertain one opinion, when you can entertain several? When you are able to juggle them all around in your head indefinitely, why do you feel the need to pick just one unless it's clearly the only correct choice?

But I digress. Maybe the point is that INTPs ultimately believe there is one rational truth out there and find the search and the idea of it to be irresistible. ENTPs are more at peace with the rational exploration of things as they are, and find it irksome that people pile on bullshit in an attempt to make it more "pretty".

Okay, so I pulled most of that out of my ass, but all of this MBTI stuff came out of someone's butt at some point... why not mine?

 

[Inquisitor]

Big differences between the two. The functional stack is deceptive.

The psychic energy of one is projected outwards, while the other turns that energy inwards.

The conflict between Ti-Fe is a much different animal from that of Ne-Si, and that's basically the essence of the issue.

 

[JimJambones]

Big differences between the two. The functional stack is deceptive.

The psychic energy of one is projected outwards, while the other turns that energy inwards.

The conflict between Ti-Fe is a much different animal from that of Ne-Si, and that's basically the essence of the issue.

Can this be done without the woo of psychic energy? You're freaking me out here.

*typology has a problem with pseudoscience as it is.

 

[Inquisitor]

Can this be done without the woo of psychic energy? You're freaking me out here.

*typology has a problem with pseudoscience as it is.

If you've read Psychological Types you won't think of "psychic energy" as being pseudoscience. More specifically "psychic energy" = "libido" for Jung and this is foundational to the whole theoretical edifice.

The term is used to describe very generally an individual's mental energy.

I'm saying that despite the fact that ENTPs and INTPs have a similar-looking functional stack, they really are very different animals altogether, but in my experience they get along well with one another...for the most part.

A fundamental difference is that ENTPs devote the majority of their psychic energy to what's "out there" ie objective, while the INTP is concerned much more about what's "in here" ie subjective. While they are both "P", INTPs have a dominant judging function and so are much more intent on exerting internal control over their thoughts and even emotions. ENTPs by contrast have a dominant perceiving function that is directed outwards, making them care very little about exerting inner control, despite the fact that Ti is auxiliary.

For all intents and purposes, INTPs and ENTPs face much different obstacles over the course of their lives...the conflict between Ti-Fe is much different from that between Ne-Si. The former is generally about logic vs. emotion while the latter is about novelty vs. tradition. That's a crude description but generally, that's what I've found.

 

[Teax]

Can this be done without the woo of psychic energy?

Even without Jung's contribution, breaking it down:

Energy = A theoretical construct, a potential that can perform a certain amount of work.
Mental Energy = The potential to perform a certain amount of mental work. Concentration.

INTPs and ENTPs face much different obstacles over the course of their lives...the conflict between Ti-Fe is much different from that between Ne-Si. The former is generally about logic vs. emotion while the latter is about novelty vs. tradition.

What do you think about the fact that INTP also have Ne and Si in their stack? I can identify with both conflicts described there. Maybe one of these obstacles will be bigger than the other for a certain individual over the course of their entire lifetime depending on I/E, or maybe it's all about the environment... can you really say that it's a clear-cut way of differentiating the two?

 

[Tannhauser]

A fundamental difference is that ENTPs devote the majority of their psychic energy to what's "out there" ie objective, while the INTP is concerned much more about what's "in here" ie subjective. While they are both "P", INTPs have a dominant judging function and so are much more intent on exerting internal control over their thoughts and even emotions. ENTPs by contrast have a dominant perceiving function that is directed outwards, making them care very little about exerting inner control, despite the fact that Ti is auxiliary.

What if you measure someone's propensity for Ne-like thinking and Ti-like thinking and it turns out they about equally prominent in that person? Then it seems to be hard to decide whether that person is ENTP or INTP.

Also, the idea that, for example when choosing work, you should focus on the dom and aux functions, seems to then be inconsistent with what you wrote here. Now INTPs and ENTPs should in principle choose the same type of work while being completely different types?

 

[Inquisitor]

What do you think about the fact that INTP also have Ne and Si in their stack? I can identify with both conflicts described there. Maybe one of these obstacles will be bigger than the other for a certain individual over the course of their entire lifetime depending on I/E, or maybe it's all about the environment... can you really say that it's a clear-cut way of differentiating the two?

Do you really though? And yes, it is clear cut, and Jung says so. There's bound to be one conflict that predominates over the course of your life. However...this may be a case of "unknown unknowns" in your case. That is to say: if you don't know you're actually confused about something, then it's impossible to know what you're confused about...

As an example, for many years, I felt I needed a job that involved helping people, but every time I thought about a "helping-type" job (clinical physician, Doctors w/o Borders, poverty alleviation), I couldn't bring myself to actually follow through and do it. Something about it evidently just didn't sit right with me, likely b/c it didn't make sense to my Ti-oriented mind.

I was a teacher for several years, and I did get a certain satisfaction from helping my students learn, but I basically burned out. The job was too stressful/exhausting.

What if you measure someone's propensity for Ne-like thinking and Ti-like thinking and it turns out they about equally prominent in that person? Then it seems to be hard to decide whether that person is ENTP or INTP.

Also, the idea that, for example when choosing work, you should focus on the dom and aux functions, seems to then be inconsistent with what you wrote here. Now INTPs and ENTPs should in principle choose the same type of work while being completely different types?

How would you measure Ne-like thinking and Ti-like thinking? And why would you assume that they are equally prominent when the theoretical foundation of typology is that only one of them dominates. Jung makes it clear that one function is fully conscious, and the rest are all more or less unconscious, with the opposite preference in the opposing attitude most repressed of all. I think you may be attributing certain things to Ne, and others to Ti that don't belong...

As for choosing work, that's why one of them takes priority. They are called dom and aux precisely because one of them is in all cases significantly more developed than the other. Ti in an INTP dwarfs Ne, and vice-versa for an ENTP. The primary consideration for an ENTP in finding work satisfaction is variety. For an INTP, variety is also appreciated, but the main concern is something along the lines of problem-solving/analysis. I wish I could sum it up in one word, but I can't think of a suitable candidate.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I can identify with both conflicts described there.

Do you really though? And yes, it is clear cut, and Jung says so.

I also identify with both, and I think it's strange of you to doubt that Teax does. I really don't think it's as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

 

[Yellow]

Do you really though? And yes, it is clear cut, and Jung says so.

...

How would you measure Ne-like thinking and Ti-like thinking? And why would you assume that they are equally prominent when the theoretical foundation of typology is that only one of them dominates. Jung makes it clear that one function is fully conscious, and the rest are all more or less unconscious, with the opposite preference in the opposing attitude most repressed of all.

I might have missed something, but this isn't a religion, right? We aren't quoting the Bible, or some other unchanging thing. "Jung says so" can't possibly be the only refuge when discussing MBTI.

No one will deny that he helped establish this really fun idea, but his wasn't the only voice at the time, and his certainly isn't now.

We don't run around saying "Freud says so" when talking about patterns from our childhood. We don't quote Hippocrates every time an ethical issue comes up in medicine. We don't feel the urge to mention Democritus whenever atomic theory is mentioned, so why does this have to be the "All Jung Show"?

......heeeeeeere's Caaaaaaaaarl!

 

[Tannhauser]

How would you measure Ne-like thinking and Ti-like thinking? And why would you assume that they are equally prominent when the theoretical foundation of typology is that only one of them dominates. .

When we were discussing the validity of MBTI in the other thread, I was told that preferences, including Introversion/Extroversion seemed to have a Normal distribution within the population -- with most people near the average. You seemed to agree there that this was consistent with the theory.

Assuming this, most people are in some sort of balance between I/E, meaning it cannot be foundation of the theory that one has a clear-cut preference for one or the other. Which leads to: INTPs and ENTPs are for the most part indistinguishable.

Come to think of it, that would also imply for example that ESFJs and INTPs are for the most part indistinguishable. But based on their exterior descriptions they are clearly not. Damn.. function theory seems like nonsense after all.

 

[JimJambones]

I might have missed something, but this isn't a religion, right? We aren't quoting the Bible, or some other unchanging thing. "Jung says so" can't possibly be the only refuge when discussing MBTI.

No one will deny that he helped establish this really fun idea, but his wasn't the only voice at the time, and his certainly isn't now.

We don't run around saying "Freud says so" when talking about patterns from our childhood. We don't quote Hippocrates every time an ethical issue comes up in medicine. We don't feel the urge to mention Democritus whenever atomic theory is mentioned, so why does this have to be the "All Jung Show"?

......heeeeeeere's Caaaaaaaaarl!

Amen

 

[Teax]

When we were discussing the validity of MBTI in the other thread, I was told that preferences, including Introversion/Extroversion seemed to have a Normal distribution within the population -- with most people near the average. You seemed to agree there that this was consistent with the theory.

I ignore this kind of statistics. The results are skewed by the very fact that they were acquired. Did the participants understand the Jungian definition of Extraversion? Telling people they can choose their preference on a linear scale conveys an implicit message that irreparably biases the result towards a normal distribution.

What I meant by not clear-cut is that I would like MBTI to have true dichotomies, as originally intended by Jung. But I do not believe that the challenges one is faced with, Ti-Fe and Ne-Si conflicts, could clearly distinguish between INTP and ENTP since both will be faced with similar problems, since they both have the same axis. There's going to be too much overlap. I need a picture with much more contrast.

ENTPs seem to be more genuinely open-minded than INTPs. But I don't think it's idealism or generosity of thought that leads to the open-mindedness. It seems to be intricately entwined with a distaste for bullshit. INTPs are more likely to accept a pile of crap if it sits well with them.

[...]

Maybe the point is that INTPs ultimately believe there is one rational truth out there and find the search and the idea of it to be irresistible. ENTPs are more at peace with the rational exploration of things as they are, and find it irksome that people pile on bullshit in an attempt to make it more "pretty"

INTPs have a very fast-reacting bullshit detector. Can you elaborate more on what you perceive the difference is?

INTPs are much less flexible than they claim to be. Once fascinated with an idea, it seems that elegancy of an idea is often taken as proof of its validity. How do ENTPs differ in this regard, if they're too being honest to themselves about it?

 

[Inquisitor]

When we were discussing the validity of MBTI in the other thread, I was told that preferences, including Introversion/Extroversion seemed to have a Normal distribution within the population -- with most people near the average. You seemed to agree there that this was consistent with the theory.

Assuming this, most people are in some sort of balance between I/E, meaning it cannot be foundation of the theory that one has a clear-cut preference for one or the other. Which leads to: INTPs and ENTPs are for the most part indistinguishable.

Introversion/Extraversion do have a normal distribution within the population...based on the MBTI test.

Behaviorally, most people do fall "in the middle" when it comes to I/E. But again, you're extrapolating just from that to conclude that therefore, I/E are indistinguishable, when they couldn't be more different.

You're only looking at objective reality, but you're dismissing the subjective realm entirely once again. It exists whether or not empirical evidence for it exists.

In the subjective realm, ie the internal or that which is not easily measured through observation of behavior alone, the ENTP is a much different animal from the INTP. This is part of the reason why people just cannot understand one another's POV and extrapolate their perspective to encompass all of reality, when in fact, as Jung says, it's only a small fraction of it. He goes into one example after another to make his case. Time and again, there have been great disagreements/debates in history between individuals of different attitudes or types, and Jung describes several of these to illustrate that in many cases, there not only was no satisfactory philosophical answer to the given question, but there could also never be a final resolution of any kind b/c both parties would have had to sacrifice their dominant function/attitude in order to accommodate the other, and that could never happen.

As for why Jung is so important...find me another psychologist who is a greater genius and can explain where Jung went wrong. From what I've read of the other works on typology, they basically agree with what he said.

 

[Yellow]

INTPs have a very fast-reacting bullshit detector. Can you elaborate more on what you perceive the difference is?
INTPs are much less flexible than they claim to be. Once fascinated with an idea, it seems that elegancy of an idea is often taken as proof of its validity. How do ENTPs differ in this regard, if they're too being honest to themselves about it?

You pretty much said it. I sometimes wonder if the fast-acting bullshit detector actually functions when turned inward. I get that Ti is supposed to lead to a well-organized mind, but it seems like the critical lens is distorted, favoring whats favorable and ignoring the unpleasant.

This is starkly different from someone who is more neutral about things, and generally comfortable with chaos, if chaos is prescribed.

For example, according my rambling hypothesis, take this imaginary situation.

There is ample evidence to suggest that A is true and that B is true. Unfortunately, A and B conflict. I would be perfectly comfortable with this. A and B seem to be true. They conflict a bit. Oh well, moving on.

An INTP is more likely to pick a side. Or invent a C that integrates their favorite parts from A and B. Both of these choices are bullshit, but the INTP needs closure. He will deftly attack arguments that disagree with his path, but he'll lack the intestinal fortitude to turn the critical lens full force onto his own beliefs.

As for why Jung is so important...find me another psychologist who is a greater genius and can explain where Jung went wrong. From what I've read of the other works on typology, they basically agree with what he said.

I don't see why any of that is necessary. He doesn't have to be utterly refuted by someone we all subjectively agree is more "genius" before we stop worshipping his every word as gospel. He had a lot of questionable ideas amongst the good ones becuase there was less information available then as now, and he was from another era culturally and academically. Regardless, no matter how strong the appeal to authority is, it is foolish to cling to any single source of information on a topic.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yellow, is that really about INTP the concept or about a bunch of self-identified INTP's that annoy you?

 

[reckful]

I ignore this kind of statistics. The results are skewed by the very fact that they were acquired. Did the participants understand the Jungian definition of Extraversion? Telling people they can choose their preference on a linear scale conveys an implicit message that irreparably biases the result towards a normal distribution.

What I meant by not clear-cut is that I would like MBTI to have true dichotomies, as originally intended by Jung. But I do not believe that the challenges one is faced with, Ti-Fe and Ne-Si conflicts, could clearly distinguish between INTP and ENTP since both will be faced with similar problems, since they both have the same axis. There's going to be too much overlap. I need a picture with much more contrast.

What do you mean by "true dichotomies, as originally intended by Jung"?

Jung said that his eight types were four varieties of introvert and four varieties of extravert, while also saying that he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted — and he referred to those ambiverts as the "normal man."

 

[Yellow]

Yellow, is that really about INTP the concept or about a bunch of self-identified INTP's that annoy you?

I honestly don't know at this point. I've begun to doubt the difference.

 

[Teax]

What do you mean by "true dichotomies, as originally intended by Jung"?

I think I meant Meyers... This is what happens when I don't have time to thoroughly re-read a post. True dichotomies are a more elegant theory. A spectrum, especially if it's normally distributed sais very little about the population.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

From what I've read of the other works on typology, they basically agree with what he said.

Wow, so you're telling me that everyone who has written about typology (a system built on the idea that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with) agrees that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with??

This is shocking to me.

 

[Teax]

Wow, so you're telling me that everyone who has written about typology (a system built on the idea that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with) agrees that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with??

This is shocking to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy5mEcmgwU

 

[Brontosaurie]

Wow, so you're telling me that everyone who has written about typology (a system built on the idea that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with) agrees that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with??

This is shocking to me.

Delicious

 

[The Gopher]

ENTPs seem to be more genuinely open-minded than INTPs. But I don't think it's idealism or generosity of thought that leads to the open-mindedness. It seems to be intricately entwined with a distaste for bullshit. INTPs are more likely to accept a pile of crap if it sits well with them. ENTPs don't seem to allow even themselves that much indulgence.

Do you really though? And yes, it is clear cut, and Jung says so.

From what I've read of the other works on typology, they basically agree with what he said.

You pretty much said it. I sometimes wonder if the fast-acting bullshit detector actually functions when turned inward. I get that Ti is supposed to lead to a well-organized mind, but it seems like the critical lens is distorted, favoring whats favorable and ignoring the unpleasant.

Wow, so you're telling me that everyone who has written about typology (a system built on the idea that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with) agrees that Jung was essentially correct about everything he came up with??

This is shocking to me.

Okay I'm now convinced Inquisitor is an INTP.

 

[Inquisitor]

An INTP is more likely to pick a side. Or invent a C that integrates their favorite parts from A and B. Both of these choices are bullshit, but the INTP needs closure. He will deftly attack arguments that disagree with his path, but he'll lack the intestinal fortitude to turn the critical lens full force onto his own beliefs

That's bullshit. The way it actually plays out is if the empirical evidence strongly contradicts the theory, it will have to be abandoned. If there is no evidence invalidating the theory, then that's fine. Also if there is no scientific evidence supporting it, then in some cases that's also fine.

I don't see why any of that is necessary. He doesn't have to be utterly refuted by someone we all subjectively agree is more "genius" before we stop worshipping his every word as gospel. He had a lot of questionable ideas amongst the good ones becuase there was less information available then as now, and he was from another era culturally and academically. Regardless, no matter how strong the appeal to authority is, it is foolish to cling to any single source of information on a topic.

Until you find someone who is a bigger intellectual badass, there's no reason to think you'll be able to contribute something of value, doubly so if you're not even an expert in the field yet...In case you think I'm only picking on you, I don't believe it's my place either to disagree with what the experts have said. I'm an amateur compared to them, and that's why the only thing I see fit to do is refine my understanding of what they thought. Until I have fully understood their ideas, I'm not even going to try to critique them.

I think of what you just said as chronocentrism. IOW, you believe that (presumably) because we live in a more scientifically advanced age and live in a different culture (a very questionable assumption with regards to what the field of psychology values) that we are in a position to know more than he did. I think that's very debatable. It's true we have lots of new tools (EEG, fMRI, CT, PET, etc.), we have the MBTI, drugs, and we have the internet. But psychology since Jung's time has continued on the same track, ie more in the direction of "quantifiable data is what counts." Jung wasn't too happy about this in his time, and he'd probably be even less so in our time.

Anyway, why not worship everything he said? It was amazing. And what are these questionable ideas that he had regarding psychological types? You gotta read the foundational works first...

 

[Tannhauser]

Inquisitor: why are you married to the idea that INTJs like empirical research and that INTPs dont care about it? I mean, I am most certainly an INTP, and I care only about empirical research. And it is not because of some preference of mine, it is because of the intellectual influences I have had throughout the years. And even if your idea were true, why should that validate the propensity to discredit empirical research? If I would have such a propensity, I would not see it as some preference of mine, I would view it as an intellectual shortcoming.

I have seen other people here say stuff like "I don't care about statistics", as if they are somehow above using empirical evidence. It is quite ridiculous.

 

[JimJambones]

[/SPOILER]



While I appreciate your post, I don't care what McCrae and Costa concluded. Neither of them could hold a candle to Jung. Even if they didn't find empirical evidence for what Jung described, you're inclined to then decide to believe that Jung "erred" whereas I'm inclined to think they just didn't/couldn't find any evidence for it.

So Jung is right whether there is evidence for his theories or not? This is a confirmation bias, plain and simple.

 

[Yellow]

I think of what you just said as chronocentrism.

Really? You. YOU are accusing someone, anyone, of chronocentrism? Are we really going there? You have it down to such an art, that you nit-pick over a matter of months.

Anyway, what I said was,

"He had a lot of questionable ideas among[sic] the good ones because there was less information available then as now, and he was from another era culturally and academically."

This isn't "he's wrong because he's old". This was my polite way of saying that academics were allowed to be flighty as fuck back then, and once established in a field, their ideas were overindulged. Most of what Jung put out there is completely unsupported by empirical evidence (this isn't ideal for a field that's supposedly a "science" and is imposed on the populace like one). It just kinda "felt right", and so we went with it. Now, again, I didn't dismiss his every concept. I think a lot of his ideas are fun, and worth entertaining. But unless the topic is "what did Jung think about X", Jung's (or anyone's) quotes lack the "umph" you are trying to bring to your argument.

I'm not pretending that I'm not speaking out my ass off the cuff about INTPs and ENTPs. I think I've been pretty open about that. However, you're just latching on to one person's (albeit much more respectable) crap and expecting it to be taken as "the truth".

... I care only about empirical research. And it is not because of some preference of mine, it is because of the intellectual influences I have had throughout the years. And even if your idea were true, why should that validate the propensity to discredit empirical research? If I would have such a propensity, I would not see it as some preference of mine, I would view it as an intellectual shortcoming.

Perfect.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Lots of reactionary stuff going on, but I'm more interested in this post:

Big differences between the two. The functional stack is deceptive.

The psychic energy of one is projected outwards, while the other turns that energy inwards.

The conflict between Ti-Fe is a much different animal from that of Ne-Si, and that's basically the essence of the issue.

I wonder what Jung means when he says psychic energy.

I'm also skeptical on whether it's the conflicts that define a person a certain type.. shouldn't it be more of the functioning order? Like others have noted, people share a lot of dichotomy conflicts. I think it could be a bit of a "standing on thin ice" if one were to type oneself based on his or her 'most appearing/relevant conflict'. I mean sure, it could be a possible way to pinpoint your type, but I'm skeptical as to how that would be the defining method.

But all in all I think NTs in general seem to overlap with each other, I mean that's why there are percentages in typology testings rather than "You are 100% Introvert" or "You are 100% Extravert" or "You are 100% Sensing" and so on. I mean open my spoilers in my signature, the percentages do seem to allude to the idea that some people could delve into another type sometimes, since they tend to fluctuate.

I get the idea that one person only must have one base type, but developmentally speaking, I think people go through and take on other types, either consciously or subconsciously. As to say whether he or she's going through some 'oh you're not being yourself' phase is another issue altogether though, I think.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Inquisitor could save us all some time by just posting this same short argument every time:

"It is so because i think it is so."

Besides, why just copy and regurgitate Jung if your own subjective intellect is so dear to you?

Ridiculous, presumptuous bogus, plain and simple.

 

[The Gopher]

Inquisitor could save us all some time by just posting this same short argument every time:

"It is so because i think it is so."

Besides, why just copy and regurgitate Jung if your own subjective intellect is so dear to you?

Ridiculous, presumptuous bogus, plain and simple.

Just another day in the faith and spirituality forum.

 

[Black Rose]

Just another day in the faith and spirituality forum.

Da Blob would add philosophy (controversy?)

Just to add to this thread:

The MBTI is not supposed to validate nor invalidate Jung's ideas of what Introversion or Extraversion is. To verify if what Jung thought was Introversion and Extraversion was correct was not the purpose of the test. It was to find people who answered questions in the category of I and E. Being in the category of I does not tell you what Introversion is nor does being in the category of E tell you what Extraversion is. What it means is that those questions placed people in the category of I and E because of what the person thought of themselves.

The question to ask is do the questions for the category of I and E have anything to do with Introversion and Extraversion. Just because a number of people are placed in the category of I or E does not tell you what traits fall into Introversion and Extraversion. That would be like using a culturally biased IQ test instead of a culture fair IQ test. What exactly is the test testing for? Low scores on a biased test do not disprove lack of an original core trait.

 

[Inquisitor]

Inquisitor: why are you married to the idea that INTJs like empirical research and that INTPs dont care about it? I mean, I am most certainly an INTP, and I care only about empirical research. And it is not because of some preference of mine, it is because of the intellectual influences I have had throughout the years. And even if your idea were true, why should that validate the propensity to discredit empirical research? If I would have such a propensity, I would not see it as some preference of mine, I would view it as an intellectual shortcoming.

I have seen other people here say stuff like "I don't care about statistics", as if they are somehow above using empirical evidence. It is quite ridiculous.

I'm not married to the idea that INTPs don't care about empirical research, just that they more likely don't only care about it whereas INTJs are much more likely to be exclusively convinced by experimental evidence. Furthermore, I'm not against data and research either. I think they're great. The MBTI is a valid instrument, and the research it has spawned is fascinating and informative, and I enjoy reading it. The problem is when you define your entire worldview exclusively according to empirical research. As I explained in my reply to reckful above, Jung equated this type of thinking with religion...in fact for him there was no difference between this and religious dogma.

If you actually reflect on what Jung says, you'll see that he's right to make that comparison. Psychology is not something that can just be reduced to objective empiricism and statistics. If you think it's an intellectual "shortcoming" that I think this, then I would say in my best master yoda voice: "much to learn you still have." Science is just an instrument, but to get a complete picture, you need to bring in all the other faculties: intuition, feeling, sensation, and so forth.

 

[Tannhauser]

If you actually reflect on what Jung says, you'll see that he's right to make that comparison. Psychology is not something that can just be reduced to objective empiricism and statistics.

If there is something in the field of psychology we cannot put to an empirical test -- does that mean that whatever Jung wrote about it must be true?

It is comical that someone with that kind of mindset should compare science with religion.

With psychology we are still dealing with the real world, my friend. When you give people career advice based on function theory for example, this lofty world of metaphysical speculations of yours is not exempt from empirical validation. Nor is any theory about the human mind for that matter.

 

[Pizzabeak]

ENTP are like ENFP except they have Ti-Fe rather than Fi-Te, extrapolating that you may get a rough idea of what they are like contrasted with INTP. And based off that admittedly unstable framework they don't appear to be exactly one and the same except perhaps in extreme circumstances where the MBTI tends to break down anyway. Haven't really met any for sure ENTP but overall they seem to generally be bigger, in some ways, and more ingrained in the world. Obviously the higher Fe leads to less inhibition volunteering certain services. The OP is worried that an INTP being more 'sociable' or ENTP being less 'sociable' turns one into the other yet I must maintain that is not the case because type or personality may be more ingrained than that. Is an INTP speaking out more on a subject he/she is passionate about suddenly ENTP? Or if one is stoned off cocaine or caffeine they must be a transient extravert now, right. Once an ENTP becomes sleepy, tired, exhausted, then he mysteriously turns into an introvert, or INTP. I think that is something else and furthermore, all that is really just basic stuff. ENTP might just appear slightly more normal. Similarly I am under the impression that ENFJ would be a good match for ENTP, in a nutshell, because of the more mature Fe.
There seems to be more confusion here than say ESTP-ISTP or ENFP-INFP, no? Or maybe it's just due to popularity of the types. Now I could be wrong here but some possible ENFP may include Neal Cassady and Joe Rogan. Sure they seem fun or obsessed with life but if that Fi were (generally) replaced with Ti you'd have a stimulating and perhaps knowledgeable individual to discuss things with. Kind of quasi but it would be ideas first then people rather than people then explanation.

 

[Inquisitor]

If there is something in the field of psychology we cannot put to an empirical test -- does that mean that whatever Jung wrote about it must be true?

It is comical that someone with that kind of mindset should compare science with religion.

With psychology we are still dealing with the real world, my friend. When you give people career advice based on function theory for example, this lofty world of metaphysical speculations of yours is not exempt from empirical validation. Nor is any theory about the human mind for that matter.

Wow...getting tired of explaining this to you. If you disagree with me that's fine. But at this point I'm done reiterating myself.

First, it's not "my metaphysical world." I'm just trying to remain faithful to what Jung said. If you prefer to go somewhere else for insight into your own psychological makeup, you're more than welcome to. I'm not trying to dissuade you from doing that. But if you don't believe what he says or find that it contradicts your subjective experience, then I don't see why you would even bother with MBTI or typology at all...

Second, it's only "comical" if you haven't read what Jung wrote. If you actually read the book instead of standing from afar and slinging mud at it, you would understand the point he tried to make when he made that comparison. Don't you think it's stupid to criticize what you don't really know...You gotta do more reading first dude. At least get a fundamental understanding of the basic ideas first.

Third, psychology can be reduced to empiricism exclusively, but much is lost in the process. That's Jung's main idea right there. He never claims empiricism is an invalid approach, only that it is one of many approaches.

It seems like you're set on never really putting much faith in this whole endeavor of typology b/c of the lack of evidence. Unfortunately for you, at the outset, it does require a bit of faith, b/c if you're 100% skeptical about the premise, then you'll never be willing to try and verify it for yourself through personal observation and experience. You have to be willing to suspend disbelief at least a little bit in the face of what you perceive to be a questionable empirical foundation. My parting message to you is that it's worth it for you to do so, but if this entails too great a violation of the principles you hold dear, then you'll never accept it.

The basis for my saying this is that it's just one post after another from you basically condemning these ideas or trying to find flaws with. This latest post about the differences between INTP and ENTP is another attempt by you to call into question the theory, thereby casting doubt on the notion that these two types are distinct entities, thereby showing that people are much more similar than the theory indicates and that it's actually very blurry and the whole edifice is shaky. Why would you even participate in a forum called the "INTP Forum" in the first place? Not meant to be a criticism at all, just wondering why if you're so skeptical you even came here...

 

[emmabobary]

Why is everybody so mad in this thread!
Inquisitor has his point and I don't see why most of you seem so personally offended.
First of all MBTI classification, is just one amongst about 10 of it's same level, as Heyman's they're just characterological classifications, which means: it focuses in labeling features in order to explain personality. So it's not very accurate, and also a very questionable approach, for it pretends to fit all the different ways humans can react, behave, structure, etc. in a reduced number of labels. This is why MBTI specific classification is mostly useful as orientation for the client, in job profiles, group therapy and conjugal counseling. The way we as therapists, are supposed to apply this classification to the real situation is in a very general way.
I'm surprised how most of you people try to excuse your way of thinking on the idea that focusing in some specific details of what he or she wrote, you can question it or expand it to 'what you feel' your own ideas of how MBTI theory should be. Like if by only arguing that you experienced something different from what the theory says you're in all the right to apply modifications to it.

When I read an ENTP profile description, I cannot shake the feeling that there is really no difference between an INTP and ENTP. It seems almost like an INTP as simply the ENTP with a character flaw -- a slightly less sociable version. Or that INTPs and ENTPs are simply one type in different modes, and that one can be one or the other dependent on one's mood, circumstances, recent experiences.

Don't you forget it's just a type of classification amongst many -and more interesting- ones? :v Don't you forget this very classification is based on a theory that goes beyond what you think or feel about it? If we really want to refute it, we're gonna have to research where this theory of Jung's come from: the big assesment of pointing the importance of the social factor, the collectiveness, in the psychoanalytic idea of unconscious. This is where the idea of Extrovert and Introvert strives come from, and later: his classification of personality types.
If you're gonna focus on details or in the fact that it doesn't fit with your approaches, don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Inquisitor is saying that Jung's work cannot be subject to criticism, alteration or speculation. There is only belief or disbelief...

Let it go man. reckful simply has another perspective. He acknowledges Jung as a seminal spark in personality theory, but not as the definitive say. He considers modifications that originated from function theory to be accurate, but he finds fuction theory invalid beyond its status as origin. You won't disprove this, no matter how many apologetic and subjectivist strings of words you put together. It is and will remain perfectly ok to prefer a theory that isn't orthodox. That's how science works. It moves on, it accommodates for progressive evidence in order to improve the predictability of intersubjectively verifiable models.

What i don't get about reckful, though, is why MBTI would matter if Big 5 has all of it and more. That appears to me a legit point of criticism.

 

[emmabobary]

The MBTI is not "Just. A. Test." The MBTI is a four-dimension personality typology. And it reflects a lot of Jung, but it also differs from Jung's original concepts in many ways, both large and small. And those differences are (mostly at least) rightly viewed as improvements to Jung, and that's largely because Myers' changes (including her many expansions) to Jung's original ideas reflected the many things she learned by putting Jung's ideas to the test — in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the modern science of of personality — and finding out what aspects of personality really cluster together.

WTF is this????
How obvious it is to me, you don't know a bit of what you're talking about

Yes. The MBTI. Is just. A. Test.

.
Yeah, baby. Unless we understand those underlying libido psychodynamics — assuming they even have much correspondence with what's actually going on inside, which there's not much reason to believe, frankly — then we don't really understand anything "useful" about introverts, do we? I don't know why people like Myers even bother writing their books

You just said it. If you don't even try to understand the concept of unconscious or libido then I don't know why people like Jung bothers to create a whole theory based on it, if people like Myers are gonna write books. :v

 

[emmabobary]

That's how science works. It moves on, it accommodates for progressive evidence in order to improve the predictability of intersubjectively verifiable models.

Hahahah
Science???
Myers Briggs Type Indicator IS NOT SCIENCE.
Context, Mon cheri!
If you want to refute a theory, focus on the theory, not on what you think or feel about it.

 

[Tannhauser]

Wow...getting tired of explaining this to you. If you disagree with me that's fine. But at this point I'm done reiterating myself.

First, it's not "my metaphysical world." I'm just trying to remain faithful to what Jung said. If you prefer to go somewhere else for insight into your own psychological makeup, you're more than welcome to. I'm not trying to dissuade you from doing that. But if you don't believe what he says or find that it contradicts your subjective experience, then I don't see why you would even bother with MBTI or typology at all...

Second, it's only "comical" if you haven't read what Jung wrote. If you actually read the book instead of standing from afar and slinging mud at it, you would understand the point he tried to make when he made that comparison. Don't you think it's stupid to criticize what you don't really know...You gotta do more reading first dude. At least get a fundamental understanding of the basic ideas first.

Third, psychology can be reduced to empiricism exclusively, but much is lost in the process. That's Jung's main idea right there. He never claims empiricism is an invalid approach, only that it is one of many approaches.

It seems like you're set on never really putting much faith in this whole endeavor of typology b/c of the lack of evidence. Unfortunately for you, at the outset, it does require a bit of faith, b/c if you're 100% skeptical about the premise, then you'll never be willing to try and verify it for yourself through personal observation and experience. You have to be willing to suspend disbelief at least a little bit in the face of what you perceive to be a questionable empirical foundation. My parting message to you is that it's worth it for you to do so, but if this entails too great a violation of the principles you hold dear, then you'll never accept it.

The basis for my saying this is that it's just one post after another from you basically condemning these ideas or trying to find flaws with. This latest post about the differences between INTP and ENTP is another attempt by you to call into question the theory, thereby casting doubt on the notion that these two types are distinct entities, thereby showing that people are much more similar than the theory indicates and that it's actually very blurry and the whole edifice is shaky. Why would you even participate in a forum called the "INTP Forum" in the first place? Not meant to be a criticism at all, just wondering why if you're so skeptical you even came here...

You can daydream about the human psyche all you want. But when one is engaging in something like this:

If you are an INTP, it's unlikely you have what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur...sorry.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23125

... then one is coming up with pretty definite statements about the empirical world, using theory which is verifiable, as it were, only inside certain people's heads. If it is not dogmatism, at the very least it is extreme epistemological arrogance.

And to be clear, I have not tried to denounce MBTI as complete nonsense. I believe it has a certain utility -- a very useful categorization of our behaviours. Sometimes one can identify with some of its descriptions, other times the descriptions are wrong, or at least imprecise and vague to the point where there they are useless.

And the original reason I wanted to explore the similarities between INTPs and ENTPs, was a highly positive one -- the potential for transcending limitations (which people sometimes put on themselves using MBTI), and evolve.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Hahahah
Science???
Myers Briggs Type Indicator IS NOT SCIENCE.
Context, Mon cheri!
If you want to refute a theory, focus on the theory, not on what you think or feel about it.

Your response doesn't make sense. You berate Bronto for taking something out of context while taking his quote out of context yourself.

Also consider toning down your downplaying "focus on theory not feelz" and overly familiar diminutive "mon cheri". You're in no position to say that and it makes you look stupidly out of place.

 

[Inquisitor]

You can daydream about the human psyche all you want. But when one is engaging in something like this:

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=23125

... then one is coming up with pretty definite statements about the empirical world, using theory which is verifiable, as it were, only inside certain people's heads. If it is not dogmatism, at the very least it is extreme epistemological arrogance.

Yeah, I guess I'm really being quite arrogant and daydreaming when I postulate that INTPs are likely poor entrepreneurs:



Of course my personal experience and those of other INTPs are also probably worthless to you so I won't even mention that.

And to be clear, I have not tried to denounce MBTI as complete nonsense. I believe it has a certain utility -- a very useful categorization of our behaviours. Sometimes one can identify with some of its descriptions, other times the descriptions are wrong, or at least imprecise and vague to the point where there they are useless.

And the original reason I wanted to explore the similarities between INTPs and ENTPs, was a highly positive one -- the potential for transcending limitations (which people sometimes put on themselves using MBTI), and evolve.

Where are they wrong? And how exactly are you going to "evolve"? The whole point is to understand yourself better and then live accordingly...

 

[Black Rose]

Uh huh. So... if I've got rich (albeit not perfect; there's lots of room for improvement and further development) descriptions from MBTI sources of what introverts tend to be like — inside and outside; values, attitudes, motivations, visceral responses, characteristic behaviors, etc. — and NFs tend to be like, and INTPs tend to be like and so on, and if many of those descriptions are actually richer and more accurate than what Jung had to say about the corresponding categories, those descriptions still aren't "useful" unless we properly understand that the reason introverts are introverted (for example) is that they project, uh, negative contents from their unconscious onto the people and things of the outside world, which in turn causes them to falsely perceive that those people and things are charged with negative energy ("libido," man, w00t!), which in turn causes them to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and strive to "withdraw libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over [them]"...

Yeah, baby. Unless we understand those underlying libido psychodynamics — assuming they even have much correspondence with what's actually going on inside, which there's not much reason to believe, frankly — then we don't really understand anything "useful" about introverts, do we? I don't know why people like Myers even bother writing their books.

Seeing as you and Inquisitor are both introverts Inquisitor seems to be less in tune with his unconscious that you are because I do not think you are totally obsessed with empirical data as he says you are. So what you are saying here is very accurate even thought you are saying this in such a way as to dismiss his position with the very logic that is being carried out within his psyche that is his disposition to begin with. Somehow disposition and position are connected psychologically? Would he be acting the way he is if his T was extroverted instead of introverted? He is obsessed with your T as being extroverted. This is exactly why I quoted what you said above.