Ni - arts or sciences?

[VH]

Maybe... I think it's just a whole world of difference between each one, and that pretty much any skill can be addressed by any of the functions, but how that will work will be different and is more efficient one way or another.

For example, when I'm programming, I think of it kind of like making a ridiculously specific wish to a very strict and whiny genie XD I first started playing with my friends with an old computer running QBASIC, which is a lot like writing a recipe or instruction booklet, then Ni took over and essentialized the concepts of control flow, call stack, etc.

Fe in action? Maybe a little bit :3

In the end, I'm not really as creative with algorithm design and stuff like that... but my code is a lot more readable than most and I can pick up little notation glitches like nothing

This sounds alarmingly similar to how I approach programming... minus the geenie. I'm trying to get the computer to do what I want it to. I'm contending with it, trying to persuade it, but it will only accept my requests if they are perfectly worded.

That last bit is dead on.

But yes, there are many approaches to achieve the same result. I'm rather certain this is why every person has at least 4 functions in their cognitive arsenal. This allows us to overcome any obstacle, by allowing us to approach any problem from any angle that offers us best advantage.

That said, certain types have greater capacity to be superstars at certain tasks and approaches, but again it's only capacity and with a specific approach.

As an entirely nerdy analogy, I've been watching the Starcraft 2 championship matches, and it's clear that the players have different MBTI types. Most are NTs, but some are STs, and one of them is definitely an NF of some sort. Their playstyles and approaches are very distinct, and what's most interesting is the fact that one player's style is strong to some opponents and weak to others. It's almost a scissors, paper, rock effect. End result - they are all world class players of the same game, even though they all approach it differently.

 

[Resonance]

This sounds alarmingly similar to how I approach programming... minus the geenie. I'm trying to get the computer to do what I want it to. I'm contending with it, trying to persuade it, but it will only accept my requests if they are perfectly worded.

That last bit is dead on.

lol! that's so cool. Nobody else I know thinks like that. It's always either "I followed the instructions so why isn't it working!", or "I have created this entire system in my head and am now going to implement it programmatically," or something, I don't even know.

The genie thing was more of a metaphor/symbol than a literal representation of my thoughts. It's more like there's this invisible, intangible creature of some sort living in the processor. Of course, I know how it actually works, but that's how I think about it.

I also have a weird (and apparently unusual) need to test every little function to see how it will act, almost like having a conversation and making sure it knows properly how to do everything before we set it up for the big, main() execution. Interpreters are a godsend in this respect.

As an entirely nerdy analogy, I've been watching the Starcraft 2 championship matches, and it's clear that the players have different MBTI types. Most are NTs, but some are STs, and one of them is definitely an NF of some sort. Their playstyles and approaches are very distinct, and what's most interesting is the fact that one player's style is strong to some opponents and weak to others. It's almost a scissors, paper, rock effect. End result - they are all world class players of the same game, even though they all approach it differently.

haha, I haven't watched enough of those to really understand what's going on. I've played Starcraft 2 but the pros are just on a whole other level of awareness and strategy.

 

[VH]

lol! that's so cool. Nobody else I know thinks like that. It's always either "I followed the instructions so why isn't it working!", or "I have created this entire system in my head and am now going to implement it programmatically," or something, I don't even know.

Now you do.

The genie thing was more of a metaphor/symbol than a literal representation of my thoughts. It's more like there's this invisible, intangible creature of some sort living in the processor. Of course, I know how it actually works, but that's how I think about it.

Yeah, I get ya. Same here.

I also have a weird need to test every little function to see how it will act, almost like having a conversation and making sure it knows properly how to do everything before we set it up for the big, main() execution. Interpreters are a godsend in this respect.

Again, this is exactly how I approach it.

 

[Resonance]

Now that I think about it, this approach also maps quite well onto how I feel about people in general. Since you can't (reasonably) blame a computer for making mistakes, you get used to the mindset that if only the parameters were different, if only the instructions were changed, if only the hardware specifications were adequate... basically, that deterministic view of behaviour. So it's your job - society's job - to change the standards so that each computer-person is acting in accordance with the greater good, is functioning optimally...not to point fingers and tell them to fix themselves.

lol, this is so confusing.

 

[VH]

lol, this is so confusing.

No, it's Ni at it's finest doing both arts and sciences at the same time.

 

[Resonance]

No, it's Ni at it's finest doing both arts and sciences at the same time.

n.n' It explains how my dad and I can both be INFJs and yet have such ridiculously incompatible ideologies.

 

[VH]

n.n' It explains how my dad and I can both be INFJs and yet have such ridiculously incompatible ideologies.

Yeah. Never underestimate the power of an Fe clash. Fe feels how things should be. When two Fe users come to feel differently how something(s) should be, it can get rough, especially if it's important to either (or both of them). I had a friend who is an INFJ that will no longer speak to me because we clashed on politics. He's one of those people who is so invested in his political views that he can't see reason outside them.

By comparison, Te users think how things should be. When they get into a disagreement, it's much easier for them to reach a consensus via reason, or simply agree to disagree after an initial debate. INTJs only really lock horns when niether of these are possible.

At least, this has definitely been my experience with INFJs and INTJs.

 

[Reon]

By comparison, Te users think how things should be. When they get into a disagreement, it's much easier for them to reach a consensus via reason, or simply agree to disagree after an initial debate. INTJs only really lock horns when niether of these are possible.

At least, this has definitely been my experience with INFJs and INTJs.

I'd agree. I've had pretty heated arguments with my ENTJ buddy Requiem (who was on the forum for a bit) and others XNTJs, and the conclusion generally is one of us saying: "I believe this because of this and that. I had evidence proving this and that and doesn't it also make sense on a general level that this would be that way?" And the other saying the same thing with different reasons. Sometimes we can come to a conclusion, other times we just simply drop it. Te just sees how something /should/ be done. Fi inherently tells us that, even if that's the case, you can't force someone to do something that's not within their moral guidelines/character. Of course Ni and Fi can throw a wrench into Te on certain topics. Ni would be resistant to any other outside perspective and Fi would do the same, stating that it's value is law.

Edit: Actually, typing that makes me think of my early INFJ forum days. I was young and I clashed with a few individuals here. My (now) friends have called me ignorant and an arrogant asshole and I was frequently told that my reasoning was flawed. I have a feeling that, at that time, they truthfully believed that to be the case. Although I responded and such, I never really felt like I or my values were being attacked (because I don't hold back when that happens).

 

[Resonance]

Yeah. Never underestimate the power of an Fe clash. Fe feels how things should be. When two Fe users come to feel differently how something(s) should be, it can get rough, especially if it's important to either (or both of them). I had a friend who is an INFJ that will no longer speak to me because we clashed on politics. He's one of those people who is so invested in his political views that he can't see reason outside them.

By comparison, Te users think how things should be. When they get into a disagreement, it's much easier for them to reach a consensus via reason, or simply agree to disagree after an initial debate. INTJs only really lock horns when niether of these are possible.

At least, this has definitely been my experience with INFJs and INTJs.

That's crazy. I would never get so invested in an argument that I would refuse to speak to the person. But I do tend to think less of them if they don't understand my points. It's one thing to reject my unbacked assertions or debunk a hypothesis - it's quite another to refuse evidence on the basis that you don't believe it.

And even so, I continue hoping that they will understand, and I fight the urge to bring it up with them every time we stumble across something new that I think might help to frame it... And every time they bring it up again, I have to fight the urge to charge back in...

I'd agree. I've had pretty heated arguments with my ENTJ buddy Requiem (who was on the forum for a bit) and others XNTJs, and the conclusion generally is one of us saying: "I believe this because of this and that. I had evidence proving this and that and doesn't it also make sense on a general level that this would be that way?" And the other saying the same thing with different reasons. Sometimes we can come to a conclusion, other times we just simply drop it. Te just sees how something /should/ be done. Fi inherently tells us that, even if that's the case, you can't force someone to do something that's not within their moral guidelines/character. Of course Ni and Fi can throw a wrench into Te on certain topics. Ni would be resistant to any other outside perspective and Fi would do the same, stating that it's value is law.

Edit: Actually, typing that makes me think of my early INFJ forum days. I was young and I clashed with a few individuals here. My (now) friends have called me ignorant and an arrogant asshole and I was frequently told that my reasoning was flawed. I have a feeling that, at that time, they truthfully believed that to be the case. Although I responded and such, I never really felt like I or my values were being attacked (because I don't hold back when that happens).

I always hope that if you can force an epiphany of some sort, that the moral guidelines/character will shift just enough....

Sometimes, it works, too :3

Although I don't get called ignorant or a bitch very often. Usually, I think, the ones who would do that are the ones I deem as too much effort to begin with ;P

 

[VH]

That's crazy. I would never get so invested in an argument that I would refuse to speak to the person. But I do tend to think less of them if they don't understand my points. It's one thing to reject my unbacked assertions or debunk a hypothesis - it's quite another to refuse evidence on the basis that you don't believe it.

And even so, I continue hoping that they will understand, and I fight the urge to bring it up with them every time we stumble across something new that I think might help to frame it... And every time they bring it up again, I have to fight the urge to charge back in...

This is my approach for the most part... except that I seldom fight the urge to charge back in. Hell, I'll bring it up again if it will clear the air to just have it out. But once we've agreed to disagree, I let them have their space, so long as they let me have mine.

I'm a bit overbearing in an argument, and I put this friend at an impasse because he insisted on talking about this subject every time we got together, and I refused to back down. He felt so strongly about this subject that he couldn't accept that I wouldn't change my views to agree with his. I suppose that only gave him the option of avoiding me.

There comes a point when reason just isn't going to change someone's opinion because the opinion is a matter of ethics and feelings. Logic and reason can't affect these things directly. He tried everything to convert me, but I'm one of those people who will not budge unless I choose to. The Fe clash got pretty epic between us because he wouldn't let it go. However, it wasn't like when I've had clashes with Fi users. We both 'fought' in a very similar way, and had the same approach in our argument. We understood were the other was coming from. We just couldn't agree on the subject. I still like him as a person, and if he ever decides to drop it, I'm sure we'd go back to being somewhat friendly... even though we no longer respect each other because our Fe can't validate the others' opinions.

 

[Reon]

Hmm. It does work, forcing an epiphany. Sometimes. I find it to be more efficient to explain why you believe in what you do and leave it at that. If a person's not ready to accept it then, smashing it into their face isn't going to help them accept it any faster. I've been on both ends: I've talked to someone who utterly convinced me that I was wrong about my belief and I was happy about that, I don't like being ignorant. On the other hand, I've also had someone berate me for not sharing their beliefs and I never accepted it, probably out of spite more than anything. I have also had a discussion with a friend, decided we didn't agree, remembered the discussion years later (I have a decent memory) reevaluated his argument and found that he was right. I suppose, in a sense, I might be playing a game of semantics with myself: I like to present knowledge. Generally. There are some things that I will fight for until I die.

Eh. But you feel like a bawss when you win the argument!~

 

[VH]

Eh. But you feel like a bawss when you win the argument!~

I feel like a bawss when I can convert someone to my Fe's perspective. It's like I just righted one point in the world that was wrong.

However, I feel the best when I can get someone to understand and agree with what my Ni is seeing. It both validates me and makes me feel like who I am is useful, helping, and making the world a better place by removing confusion. I suppose that's Ni, Fe, and Ti all going at the same time.

 

[Resonance]

lol, so true. both of you. I had my stance turned around on abortion for example, before I got a handle on the nuances of each perspective and ultimately decided the whole discussion was pointless.

That was neat.

And when I was in yet another teenager's dumb existentialist thread, poking it to pieces in hopes of getting him to see the big picture and stop being so damn hopeless, I got a PM from a lurker saying 'always nice to see another deconstructionist around.' We sort of became allies and backed each other up when people got lippy. The kid ended up figuring things out and getting on with his life, too, so I was proud of myself.

 

[technics]

INTJs tend to excel at things that require relative logic and reasoning.

then why do they call INTJ's "the scientists"?

I always wondered why INTJs are into science and why they're called "the scientists". When I read that label, I thought that was wrong. And Keirsey says INTPs are "the architects". For me it's the other way round: INTJs are architects and INTPs are scientists.

I think INTJs who got stuck in science and never strayed into other disciplines such as the arts or social sciences really haven't experienced the full breadth of understanding.

Te users think how things should be. When they get into a disagreement, it's much easier for them to reach a consensus via reason, or simply agree to disagree after an initial debate. INTJs only really lock horns when niether of these are possible.

I only debate with people who have done their homework. I disdain people who join every discussion as if they were an expert when you can clearly see they have no idea what they're talking about. A consensus via reason is definitely the most elegant solution, but only few are capable of it, so you either have to seize power and give the whole project your signature, or you have to make compromises which is a mediocre solution (too many cooks spoil the broth). But there are rarely situations where you could "agree to disagree". When such stalemates happen, I usually have my plan B ready to get rid of my opponent.