Rationals (NTs)

When someone misunderstands this thread and is mean will they-

  • A, claim all NTs are evil because of a single bad experience or

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • B, argue that NTs are the master race

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • C, inevitable joke answer: Xylophone

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • D, use their unlimited power to edit this poll. Xx, Lady Palpatine

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
As an honorary NT, I must echo this unfathomable exclaim of incredulity. No NT would ever want to be another type. As for the ENTJ part, that's just... hä?

NTPs make for a much better and more conceivable choice, closely followed by INTJ, subjectively statistically speaking :P
 
Ginny said:
NTPs make for a much better and more conceivable choice,
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Ginny said:
As an honorary NT, I must echo this unfathomable exclaim of incredulity. No NT would ever want to be another type. As for the ENTJ part, that's just... hä?

NTPs make for a much better and more conceivable choice, closely followed by INTJ, subjectively statistically speaking :p
Click to expand...
I think you're just dating an ENTP you simp.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I think NTs are less alike than Fi folks are to each other, and Fe folks are to each other.
Click to expand...
The significant differences are in a subtlety that creates vast crevices of differences.

In all factualness, your statement might be true, but NTs and Fi-Fe are the like comparing sticks and stones. You can't compare type differences against function differences as if they were the same. Most of all since NT-types use feeling functions all the same.

If you were to compare differences between NT and NF types, the differences are quite palpable and overlap in size.
 
Pin said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because of their logic-driven, determined mindset, but mostly such a thick skin lol
(I'm speaking from the experience with the ENTJs in my life though).
No matter how tough the challenge, they don’t pressure themselves with being liked, and they have both the grit and the guts to see things through. While for INFJs this isn't unusual either, it comes with so much overthinking and can be rather draining emotionally.
That being said, I believe these qualities are far from unattainable - they could be worked on and improved; after all, INFJs can be quite resilient and adaptable when we put our minds on something :-)
 
Ginny said:
The significant differences are in a subtlety that creates vast crevices of differences.

In all factualness, your statement might be true, but NTs and Fi-Fe are the like comparing sticks and stones. You can't compare type differences against function differences as if they were the same. Most of all since NT-types use feeling functions all the same.

If you were to compare differences between NT and NF types, the differences are quite palpable and overlap in size.
Click to expand...
Just observationally, what we tend to see divide people (or, conversely, align people) is:

1) N vs S

2) Fi(+Te) vs Fe(+Ti)

I don't really see Thinkers and Feelers getting divided all that much, but then my 'sample size' is pretty limited. Instead what tends to happen is NFJs feeling more comfortable with NTPs, and NTJs feeling more comfortable with NFPs, such that I don't see a problem with concluding that 'Fe vs Fi' seems to carry more weight in terms of interpersonal affinity than does 'Thinker vs Feeler'.

In terms of your specific critiques:
Ginny said:
but NTs and Fi-Fe are the like comparing sticks and stones. You can't compare type differences against function differences as if they were the same. Most of all since NT-types use feeling functions all the same.
Click to expand...
I don't see why the comparison is inadmissible, since I'm just picking features by which to categorise people. A boundary can be drawn around any collection of traits/features and called a category. In any case, type differences are just function differences by another name; just function differences at a higher level of granularity.

Ginny said:
If you were to compare differences between NT and NF types, the differences are quite palpable and overlap in size.
Click to expand...
See, I just disagree with this. I think an INTJ is more similar to an ENFP than to an INTP, for instance, but again this might be the biases of my 'sample' working against me. Why are they more similar? Simply because I'm privileging the shared Te/Fi axis over shared 'Thinker' status.
 
Sorry for using harder antonyms than desired. We have different points of view on this, therefore we have different foci in what qualifies as difference. I explained how I understood what you wrote and explained why I don't consider it comparabe. It doesn't make your interpretation inadmissible, just based on different values.

Deleted member 16771 said:
A boundary can be drawn around any collection of traits/features and called a category. In any case, type differences are just function differences by another name; just function differences at a higher level of granularity.
Click to expand...
Different categories make different bases of argumentation. If you don't use the same basis of definition for your arguments, then you cross-argue on different foundations. That's where misunderstanding come along and bury you in the shaky construct you create. Level it by interlining function and slot, then it's a base which enables a type-ish shorthand. Then, imo, we have a foundation that is less subjectively comparable.

You don't have to agree with it, but unless the foundations of an argument can be agreed upon, discourse is going to be very limited and bound to create tiresome misunderstandings as well as frustration.
 
Ginny said:
Sorry for using harder antonyms than desired. We have different points of view on this, therefore we have different foci in what qualifies as difference. I explained how I understood what you wrote and explained why I don't consider it comparabe. It doesn't make your interpretation inadmissible, just based on different values.


Different categories make different bases of argumentation. If you don't use the same basis of definition for your arguments, then you cross-argue on different foundations. That's where misunderstanding come along and bury you in the shaky construct you create. Level it by interlining function and slot, then it's a base which enables a type-ish shorthand. Then, imo, we have a foundation that is less subjectively comparable.

You don't have to agree with it, but unless the foundations of an argument can be agreed upon, discourse is going to be very limited and bound to create tiresome misunderstandings as well as frustration.
Click to expand...
But do you agree with me, Ginny? lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top