How can an INTJ outsmart an INTP?

From a logical standpoint, I doubt that an INTJ could ever really outsmart an INTP, at least if you’re talking about a debate of ideas. The information that these two types focus on and value the most are completely different, and here the INTP is always going to have the upper hand: because they’re Ti-doms (whereas INTJs are Ni-doms, and have Te as their thinking function), it’s almost always going to be the case that the INTP’s ideas will be more logically consistent than the INTJ’s, since the INTJ will be more focused on practicality and effectiveness than on the internal consistency of their ideas (which leaves a lot of holes in their reasoning process – not necessarily their fault, being Ni-doms, meaning that they’re more concerned with observing and perceiving the world around them than categorizing it). I used to be somewhat jealous of INTPs for this reason (because I hate not being the best at everything)… until I kept observing them and naturally ended up noticing some of the areas in which they were deficient, but in which INTJs thrive.

Where the INTJ will naturally retain the upper hand in this case is when it comes to practical reality (including both translating their ideas into a workable external system, as well as taking it into account in their conclusions, which INTPs often fail to). Something I’ve noticed again and again with INTPs is that they display a certain type of paradoxical, even hypocritical, thought process in which they don’t really care how realistic their ideas are when implemented in reality as long as it’s logically consistent to them. Just for one example: I was having a discussion with a good INTP friend of mine the other day, during which he openly admitted that he doesn’t really care whether people die unnecessarily via vigilantism (as opposed to state-sanctioned/police brutality, which he is very opposed to as a libertarian), as long as the internal motivations of the individual performing the action are pure. I understood where he was coming from and I agree that motivations are important and should be taken into account, but being a Te user, I just couldn’t abide by that logic—what’s the point of fixing/abolishing an imperfect justice system if we replace it with a system that has an identical outcome for the population? Why, so we can feel more morally and ethically pure? I often find that INTPs, especially younger ones, spend a lot of time pointing out the inconsistencies in other people’s arguments, but very much lack the self-awareness to realize when they themselves are doing the same thing; and Ti-doms, I’ve noticed, are very much prone to certain types of logical fallacies in their thought process (especially slippery slope arguments).

In the interest of time, let me copypaste a portion of a conversation I had with an ENTP on Facebook about behavioral patterns/flaws we’ve noticed in the INTP thought process. Warning, tl;dr ahead (skip to the bottom of the post if you want to read a summary of the point I’m trying to make):

“Holly C Hayes INTP logic is more accurate and internally sound than ENTP logic; however, INTPs are also more likely to ignore evidence that contradicts their world view, by raising the bar of what they will accept as evidence so high that they essentially stop being open to alternative viewpoints. If it doesn’t fit, then they just will not try to shift their perspective to find a way to incorporate it; instead they’ll write it off as a fluke, OR (more commonly) try to reinterpret the evidence in such a way that allows it to fit into their paradigm. Ti-Si probems: the theory is formulated based on the past; the past is reinterpreted through the lens of theory, and as a result they end up getting stuck in a loop of self-confirming biases that they have trouble analyzing objectively. I’ve seen many INTPs fall into this trap, and end up overlooking some really obvious evidence for this reason. The other thing is that during debates, generally they’re so focused on picking apart your reasoning, and pointing out the logical fallacies in your argument, that they end up completely missing when they do it themselves. I also noticed that they have a tendency to put so much effort into the reasoning process itself, making sure that there are no holes in their logic (which, to be fair, there rarely are), that they end up forgetting to question whether the premise they started with was accurate in the first place – it’s like trying to build a house on a foundation of sand: the house could be perfectly constructed from top to bottom, but it’s still going to topple over if it’s built on unstable ground. I’ve seen many INTPs make critical errors in reasoning by doing this, and by essentially already having their mind made up about which direction they’re going to approach a problem from before they even know what the problem IS. Everything has to fit into their previously deduced and carefully categorized world view. If it doesn’t, then in the famous words of Stefan Molyneux, the world’s most insufferable INTP: “Not an argument”.

In summary: INTP logic is more solid than ENTP logic, but it’s also less open-minded about alternative possibilities, and sometimes fails to take a broader perspective into account; ENTP arguments are more effective than INTP arguments because they can make bullshit sound like the truth due to their awareness of all the different angles (especially the ones that will be most effective for a certain audience) – however, INTPs can easily spot the flaws in reasoning that ENTPs leave themselves open to by being willing to jump track with their argument so often. But taking all of this into account, ENTPs generally win because they can appeal to the audience and remain open to possibilities in ways that INTP often don‘t. That said, it would really depend on the individual. I’ve met female INTPs who were highly intelligent and excellent debaters who would not fall into this trap. Actually, I know a great documentary about a female INTP who conned her way into an Ivy League school mostly on the strength of her debate skills. Here you go, if you want to watch it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJymZG2QFAY “

—

Second response:

“Holly C Hayes That’s an interesting observation, I’ve never really considered that. Gonna have to think about it and test it out on some INTPs.

I think it might be because Ti as a function (which is an INTP’s strongest function, and an ENTP’s second-strongest function) is not very verbal – Ti-doms (INTPs and ISTPs) don’t really appreciate or enjoy having to explain themselves or their ideas to others out loud. This isn’t to say that they don’t like discussing possibilities or bouncing ideas off of people, but they would generally prefer it if people just “got it” without them having to explain – they’re the epitome of that cheeky student in school who writes the correct answer to a math question, but refuses to “show their work”, and so they end up failing the test even though they technically got all the questions right. So I wonder if their dislike of being questioned is related to that?”

—

Third response:

“Holly C Hayes I really agree with you there, that’s something I’ve also noticed about INTPs: it’s almost like as long as their logic is thorough and has no holes in it, then it doesn’t really matter to them how impractical or unrealistic their ideas are in reality. They get so caught up in ensuring the accuracy of their logic that they lose sight of the bigger picture, and end up failing to question whether or not their ideas are even reasonable in the end. It’s the difference between logicality and rationality.

Another thing I noticed is that they seem to over-estimate the universal scope of their theories – for example, I feel like they think that, since their ideas are so thoroughly reasoned and well thought-out (which they truly are), that their plan therefore could not possibly fail to live up to reality, or have any holes in it in terms of its actual application – but one thing that I noticed about many of their ideas is that they just aren’t a realistic goal at all.

This is a bit of a different subject, but I also tend to find that they have a bad habit of automatically ascribing positive intentions/motivations to the people who agree with them (or the people who they love and know well), while ascribing universally and purposely negative intentions to the people who DON’T agree with them, or who they don’t know well; and in general, I have found them extremely poor at sussing out the internal motivations of others (though it’s impossible to convince them of this). [This is the argument I was just having with an INTP friend of mine.] For example: say you’re a libertarian or alt-right, like they are. They will automatically assume that anybody who is a libertarian as well is doing it with the best of intentions for humanity in mind, and that there’s no way any system of that kind could possibly become corrupt under the influence of people who agree with them and think like they do – because they know that their own motivations are pure, and so they assume that the intent of anybody who holds a similar viewpoint as them must be pure as well. However, say you’re NOT a libertarian/alt-right; say you’re a Democrat, or a communist, or a leftist, or a Republican. In THAT case, I’ve noticed INTPs will then stop giving you the benefit of the doubt, and start assuming that your difference of opinion is not JUST because you value different things than they do (or that you’re simply uninformed) – but they will actually ascribe negative intentions upon you, such as greed, purposeful dishonesty (as opposed to just being misinformed or stupid), or being corrupt or power-hungry. For example, I got into a relatively heated argument with a good INTP friend of mine the other day, during which he took it in turn to accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum (I wasn’t), of strawmanning his argument (I wasn’t, at least not intentionally; maybe I did misunderstand his point, but it wasn’t malicious or intentional on my part), and of just generally lying about my true feelings/experiences to avoid looking bad. I don’t think he was trying to be a dick to me, and I don’t hold it against him or anything; I’ve just noticed that they tend to get it wrong when they make a shot in the dark about why people do the things they do, even if they’re correct about their behavioral patterns. Whereas I almost always assume that people’s actions are a result of ignorance, stupidity, or bias, they tend to assume that people’s actions are a result of deliberate and malicious intent.

In a weird way, this is almost one of INTPs’ more redeeming qualities, because I think that this viewpoint is often borne from a place of naivete, a very pure, innocent, and almost childlike way of regarding humanity. It’s cute but can also be irritating and a little bit arrogant at the same time, and it’s very frustrating to have your integrity questioned when you know that you’re being authentic, straightforward, and not malicious.

I also noticed that many of them hugely over-estimate their ability to read and understand people, both universally and individually. They think they have such an incredible and solid understanding of humanity, but I haven’t met an INTP yet who was half as good at understanding people’s innermost motivations and intentions as they think they are (unless they’ve known them along enough to have been able to pick up some patterns about their behavior; but the one INTP I know who does this well is female, and she’s also older, so again, I’m not sure if this is a trait exclusive to male or younger INTPs). They LOVE confidently declaring what they think they factually know to be everyone else’s motivations, but get very upset and sensitive when people do it to them in return. I think this might just be an Fe-Ti thing in general, though (because Fi is, in my opinion, much better at identifying the internal motivations behind other people’s actions than Fe is – Fe is more about outer behavior; harmonious actions on the outside as opposed to Fi’s harmonious beliefs on the inside).

Pretty much what you wrote there at the end – “they don’t really think about such consequences as long as they are satisfied with themselves in the end” – is my biggest issue with those kinds of INTPs. They totally lose sight of the bigger picture in pursuit of fulfilling their own objectives (which they regard as not just objectively correct, but also of being universally better for EVERYBODY, if only the plebians were smart enough to realize it). Many of them seem to over-estimate how broadly applicable their ideas are (in a not dissimilar way as INTJs are prone to doing, though usually with INTJs there’s a much more tangible air of arrogance and authority there than with INTPs), and struggle to understand that people have different preferences than they do; and that these differences in preferences are NOT automatically just because the other person is too stupid or corrupt to understand why their preferences are inferior. What works for them will not necessarily work for somebody else. That’s just a basic truth about the nature of humanity, and I’ve encountered many INTPs seem to struggle with this concept.”

IN SUMMARY!

The way that an INTJ can outsmart an INTP is by forcing them to apply their theories to reality (spoiler: their perfectly logical house of cards often comes crashing down when subjected to the world of the imperfect, irrational actions and feelings of humanity that exists outside their head, in a similar way as when an INFP’s system of flawless, cohesive inner morality gets torn apart in the real world when subjected to the inherently imperfect, immoral, illogical, and selfish actions of humans. The problem with any system that looks perfect on paper is that people aren’t perfect). That said, it has generally been my experience that it’s difficult for INTJs to get INTPs to acknowledge this fact. ENTPs are a lot better at trolling the fuck out of INTPs by pointing out this hole in their reasoning process.

Go forth and do the dirty work, ENTPs. For science. For justice. For keks.

I keep editing this answer with info dumps in stereotypical Ni-dom fashion, sorry. But I felt like this response would be incomplete without outlining some of the other advantages that INTJs have over INTPs, outside of what I summarized in my tl;dr above. I’ll make an identical list for ways in which INTPs excel compared to INTJs (in the name of accuracy and objectivity) if anybody wants me to, as well.

Practicality. As I already explained above: an INTJ’s ideas are always going to have more reliable and efficient real-world applications than an INTP’s will. It has generally been my experience that INTPs and INTJs make excellent teammates for this reason: they brainstorm together about theoretical topics (which the INTP hones to perfection), and then the INTJ finds ways to implement it externally.

Self-awareness.

A more accurate ability to ‘read’ other people, and the hidden motivations behind their behavior.

Ambition/drive/higher odds of academic and financial success.

Somewhat subjective, but I think just based on observation that INTJs are probably more likely than INTPs are to lead lives that feel meaningful to them, and are perhaps less likely to suffer from the type of crippling depression that leaves them unable to function normally or happily for most of their lives. And I say this as a non-functioning INTJ myself.

More likely to realize and be able to admit to making a mistake in their reasoning process, although I must admit that many INTJs really struggle in this area due to a) Fi attaching personal meaning/significance to their ideas, and b) Ni taking a very, very long time to come to conclusions, and being quite reluctant to change their mind once they get there because of how much energy and intense self-reflection it takes to find a way to reevaluate all of their evidence to find a new perspective that makes sense to them. In my experience, it tends to come down to age/maturity and how you approach them about it – if you come at an INTJ in an adversarial way, then they’ll be much more likely to respond defensively and arrogantly than an INTP will, and will keep arguing long past the point where they’ve clearly lost the argument; but later on, as they reflect on it/get older/are approached about it in a less accusatory and aggressive manner, they’ll be much more likely to admit to their deficiencies in reasoning or personality than INTPs will (and it makes them a lot easier to compromise with as partners and friends).

Dem feelz. INTJs may not feel comfortable expressing them, but we’re at least comfortable analyzing and reflecting on them, even if only in our heads and from a dispassionate, analytical, third person perspective. It has generally been my experience that INTPs are much more likely to ignore or intellectualize their emotional reactions and thus downplay their importance, which ironically makes them much more likely to make mistakes in judgment by not being aware of their own potential emotional biases. (And they do have them; don’t let any INTP (or any thinker, for that matter) tell you otherwise.) For this reason, I’ve noticed that INTPs will often end up in relationships with emotionally intelligent feelers who make them feel comfortable with acknowledging and experiencing their own emotions (especially INFPs, INFJs, ISFPs, and sometimes ESFJs).

INTJs are much more adept at identifying discordant patterns in behavior/systems/etc than INTPs are. It has generally been my experience that INTPs get so wrapped up in the reasoning process, trying to find a way to view every action/experience/piece of data in a way that balances correctly against their system of internal logic, that they can very much be in danger of totally misinterpreting information that has a thoroughly innocent, simple, and non-deceptive reason behind it; as I explained above, “The theory is based on the past, and the past is re-interpreted through the lens of theory.” This can lead to INTPs being totally, completely off in their conclusion, because they’re not really analyzing the full picture holistically like an INTJ is—they’re trying to fit it into a system that already exists in their head, and if it doesn’t fit, then dammit, they’re make it.