Personality Cafe banner
21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
Well okay here is my next question. Since I feel my internal world is much richer and deeper than the external world I see, wouldn't Ni have 100000000000 million times more material work with? Verse Ne which only has to work the externals?
No. Both types have material to work with. They just emphasize one more than the other.
And there is no reason to think that internal or external world is more useful for creativity (in terms of preference).

It seems to me that you're just forcing a personal bias through a very loose understanding of the function theory.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
212 Posts
INTPs are far more creative in their thinking, but INTJs are more creative in every other aspect of their lives... and their creativity is more noticeable to others because of their high Te. So, I think it's safe to say that INTJs have a more creative lifestyle than INTPs.
Good point. INTP excel in modeling and rigorous abstraction whereas INTJ are better in strategy (which is also a form of creativity). Concerning the normal definition of creativity (arts and so on), I'd say that INTJ are more at home there because of their intuition. I think INTP would be more interested in the neuroscience of art/music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
Concerning the normal definition of creativity (arts and so on), I'd say that INTJ are more at home there because of their intuition. I think INTP would be more interested in the neuroscience of art/music.
Careers Selected Most Often by INTP -

1) Scientist: Chemistry
2) Computer Professional
3) Architect
4) Research Assistant
5) Fine Artist
6) Computer Programmer, Systems Analyst, or Support Representative
7) Lawyer
8) Food Service Worker
9) Surveyor
10) Manager: Federal Executive

SOURCE: INTP Occupations
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
212 Posts
5) Fine Artist
That doesn't say anything at all. You can find those kinds of lists everywhere:

Careers chosen by those preferring the INTJ's dominant function (Ni) (calculated using "selection ratio")

Project manager
Nurse
Technical specialist
Lawyer/attorney
Designer
Engineer
Professor/academic/lecturer
Artist/actor
Manager
Writer/editor
Forces
Trainer
Clergy/church worker
Counsellor

Source: INTJ Careers: A List of Professional Jobs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
That doesn't say anything at all. You can find those kinds of lists everywhere:

Careers chosen by those preferring the INTJ's dominant function (Ni) (calculated using "selection ratio")

Project manager
Nurse
Technical specialist
Lawyer/attorney
Designer
Engineer
Professor/academic/lecturer
Artist/actor
Manager
Writer/editor
Forces
Trainer
Clergy/church worker
Counsellor

Source: INTJ Careers: A List of Professional Jobs
I think you are misunderstanding me. I was not saying that INTJ's were not likely to be at home in the arts. Only that INTP's also were.

I know both INTJ and INTP artists personally.

Source: My life:tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
^^
Yeah...see this is the problem. Creativity is prized in our society, and everyone likes to think of themselves as creative, so people stretch the definition to mean something it doesn't.

If you just define creative as "making something" or "doing something", it loses its meaning entirely. If that is all "creative" means, why exactly do you want to be creative? What is so special about it now?

That's why I never got why people insist on diluting the word to make people feel good. Soon no one will have any reason to feel good when the word creative is mentioned, because it will mean nothing. So who wins?

But then again, many INTJ's are also on a kind of an "Ni high horse" and develop a superiority complex they seek to defend when they even get the vaguest whiff that someone is not consciously thinking about how Ni is not God's Gift to the Human Race. Hence patria's apparent discomfort at the mere existence of INTP artists and the belief I was somehow in some sort of competition with her when I mentioned their existence.

But still, my point stands, even though I seem to be the only INTP honest enough to make it: Ti, by itself, is not creative. Per se. No judging function is, nor are the Sensing functions (in a meaningful sense). Big deal. Embrace your Ti and its powers of discernment. Take up something that forces you to stretch your imagination to the limit, and develop your Ne. It's quite possible to become very strong with your secondary function, you know, although it will always serve the dominant function. Bertrand Russell (ENTP) had a killer command of Ti...

But it's a lot easier to sit around a claim your dominant function is something it isn't, isn't it? (Or...just "cut your losses" and make fun of Sensors! That's aways a good time!:crazy::wink:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
I wouldn't say Ti isn't creative. It is a judging function but you can come to novel conclusions with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
675 Posts
INTPs are more creative, only because they're less creative. There's an admirable element of clumsiness and carelessness the INTPs possess that gives them a larger creative horizon. INTJs are more likely to get lost in the One True Vision, without developing their ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
INTPs are more creative, only because they're less creative. There's an admirable element of clumsiness and carelessness the INTPs possess that gives them a larger creative horizon. INTJs are more likely to get lost in the One True Vision, without developing their ideas.
Yes, that is a good comparison.

Ne is broader than Ni in it's scope, it just doesn't have a focus. It just sees a bunch of random connections and possibilties. An INTP (and moreso an ENTP) would come up with more ideas, because Ne does not have that "there-can-be-only-one-ness". As I have mentioned several times, that is why they are so successful in comedy, where the wild and unexpected is prized.

The INTP is less likely to dismiss something as a bad idea, especially if they have learned to rein in their Ti.

Also since the INTP extraverts their creativity, people are more likely to see it. I have a more offbeat and whimsical lifestyle than the INTJ's I know, and am a lot funnier than they are. People always tell me how creative I am, so the point here isn't that INTP's aren't creative at all.

Still I do not have the same intensity of vision. I am scattered, and I need Ti to make sense of it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,026 Posts
It's hard to see Ni as creative, because to me it doesn't exactly create. I just see things that are already there. The relationships exist - even if no one has thought of them before. Ni has an incredible depth and widescale view and it is amazing and probably seems creative to others, but to me it is always obvious. Or something that should have been obvious. And it is so broad and complicated that the making of it into any actual creation involves boatloads of Te. Te is really the workhorse in that. Ne seems to be closer contact, detailed, smaller in a way - not in potential scope, but in each instance of plucking an idea - so that it seems like it would lead more directly to something more tangible in the creative line. Obviously not as tangible as Sensing, but it has the more extraverted connection to reality. I find when I try to write something, for instance, I know first the thematic elements and certain abstract ways I can relate words to accomplish particular artistic goals - but it takes tons of Te to determing what words/characters/images can actually represent my ideas and patterns. It is like I have a cutout of a really cool pattern but I have to do all the work of colouring it in - but Ne will see closer, see the colours, the detail, a more immediately useable idea - and then, I guess, build the shape when they want a bigger system. &I can't imagine visually - but I can figure out which visual images fit a pattern without really seeing them.

I imagine there is an element of the grass being greener just because Ni/Ne are in fact perceiving functions - and what feels like seeing doesn't feel so creative as looking at others who see things you couldn't so easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nevermore

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
INTPs are more creative, only because they're less creative. There's an admirable element of clumsiness and carelessness the INTPs possess that gives them a larger creative horizon. INTJs are more likely to get lost in the One True Vision, without developing their ideas.
I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or just saying what you said in different terms, but I don't know if I would necessarily say clumsiness or carelessness are the source of an NTP's creativity, but I can see how it would look that way.

NTJs (in my experience ENTJs especially, but also INTJs to a lesser degree) want to be sure something is going to work before they do it. If they don't know that something will work (or don't at least strongly suspect it), they will avoid doing it if possible. Thus, I'd say the NTJ motto is "Measure twice, cut once".

NTPs generally work by trial and error. We generally figure out if something will work by trying it out. Thus, we're more likely to make stupid mistakes, but we're also likely to try out a lot of things NTJs wouldn't ever dream of doing. Thus, I'd say Edison best put the NTP motto: "I haven't failed, I've only found 100 ways that haven't worked."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
It's hard to see Ni as creative, because to me it doesn't exactly create. I just see things that are already there. The relationships exist - even if no one has thought of them before. Ni has an incredible depth and widescale view and it is amazing and probably seems creative to others, but to me it is always obvious. Or something that should have been obvious. And it is so broad and complicated that the making of it into any actual creation involves boatloads of Te. Te is really the workhorse in that. Ne seems to be closer contact, detailed, smaller in a way - not in potential scope, but in each instance of plucking an idea - so that it seems like it would lead more directly to something more tangible in the creative line. Obviously not as tangible as Sensing, but it has the more extraverted connection to reality. I find when I try to write something, for instance, I know first the thematic elements and certain abstract ways I can relate words to accomplish particular artistic goals - but it takes tons of Te to determing what words/characters/images can actually represent my ideas and patterns. It is like I have a cutout of a really cool pattern but I have to do all the work of colouring it in - but Ne will see closer, see the colours, the detail, a more immediately useable idea - and then, I guess, build the shape when they want a bigger system. &I can't imagine visually - but I can figure out which visual images fit a pattern without really seeing them.

I imagine there is an element of the grass being greener just because Ni/Ne are in fact perceiving functions - and what feels like seeing doesn't feel so creative as looking at others who see things you couldn't so easily.
Interesting; I write fiction in my spare time as well (don't know if I'm any good, but I couldn't live without some form of artistic expression), and of course I mostly relate to the Ne way of doing things. I can summon up richly detailed images on a whim, but I find it rather hard to get the whole story into my head at once, which I find is sort of a disadvantage, because often when I read the whole thing over I find what were wonderful scenes by themselves just don't work as a whole. But when I write an individual scene, there is always at least an imagined context that gives it, say, poingancy; it's just hard for me to keep the whole thing in my head at once without making a new Ne data point that generalizes it. Often I have to play the whole story as a montage to get perspective on the dramatic flow. I need to experience it in real time.

Very insightful post, by the way. I think the last line summed things up very well.
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top