Different domains. As long as the control of the domain is not interfered with, both can win at their own games.

As an ENTP, I tend to take into consideration external patterns, and the feelings people have about embracing these external patterns. Then I think about them and form connections between different conceptual structures, or what we might call “paradigms”. This really isn't a form of magic, although it might be taken to be as much by those who can't see how I got there. What I'm really doing is making a mental map of outlying terrain. This helps me to understand systems, how they function, and where their functional flaws are. But more than that, over an extensive period of time and experience, I can also make effective cognitive leaps, for instance to see that the Myer-Briggs function Fi is most likely undergirding belief systems in Ontology, and that such consequent implicit beliefs in “the soul”, “self”, or an identity that remains unchanging, are inevitably linked to a moralizing tendency, which is in turn linked to the notion of teleology. (That “we are here on this Earth to undergo systems of improvement.”) And I can link ALL of this to Nietzsche’s critique of “slave morality”. In short “ontology=slave morality”.

The problem is to explain the long and tireless process by which I came to this conclusion or realisation. It's not that I don't know — I can state what I've encountered over time — but every time I point to the exterior world and say, “Look there, there are actually patterns we can register!” I hit a blank. This is even with INTJs, who lack Ne (extraverted intuition ) and so fail to see “the patterns”.

And so that's the problem, right there! I can win on my own terms, every time, if I just go along with my own mental map, on which I see “patterns”, but if I try to explain it, I meet with hostility. Apparently to register reality in this way is “grandiose”, no matter how painstaking ones methods may be or how much they include checking and rechecking.

So we can see how the INTJs can win by stealth, simply by relabelling something that is very good ( extraverted intuition, in fact) as something more mysterious and harmful, in fact something very bad indeed. Certainly they do not directly observe the external ”patterns” in the world, that make up our environment. They're more inclined to just pick up a sense of things and run with it. If they are wrong, then they are overcommitted to being very wrong. Of course they could knit together a plausible sounding explanation, and because they are much more systematic than an ENTP ( due to extraverted thinking), they would be more likely to believed.

Somehow, however, I don't like reverse alchemy: this changing back from gold into its former base metal. But alas it is one of the INTJs covert powers to beat the ENTP.

 I love it. But Twain was in a sense too optimistic as travel is not always the answer. Or rather nothing beats being a local yokel and experiencing things from the ground. For instance a traveling diplomat may well be insulated from experiencing the worst a country has to offer, not just in terms of his own mind —his bubble of expectations — but what others design to show him.

In the case of myself, most definitely home grown, I've now been able to recognise the crudity of the very typical American response to me in its constant iteration, “You couldn't have experienced patriarchy, Jennifer. You were brought up in a leafy suburb, and were treated like a Disney Princess.”. I mean, really? Comprehension starting at zero point, and then maintaining its consistent speed? Again?!

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-get-someone-to-use-language-that-confirms-they-have-understood-my-perspective-and-not-just-my-words/answer/Jennifer-Armstrong-115?comment_id=402925539&comment_type=2

 So, a major shift that has happened in the past decade or so is that there has been movement away from troubling oneself with complexity. At the forefront of this movement is Jordan Peterson, who sees the problem from a psychological viewpoint, but not from a philosophical one.

The situation itself is very interesting to me. Complexity, as a philosophical facet of meaning, has been foisted on the public, some might argue. The edifice of poststructuralism and postmodernism does not seem to do society as much good at all, other than fuel confusion and infighting. From a psychological point of view this is highly problematic. (I, myself, was tiring if complexity, since it never seemed to have an end, but only allowed others to hide behind a few foggy notion of my own historical reality in order to attack me.)

But here's the rub. Due to a general intolerance of what is perceived as “postmodernism” (let's not even debate if this is the correct name at this point) complexity, as such, as been blacklisted. From a philosophical point of view now we have a problem. Psychology want to take it upon itself to label complexity as “grandiosity”. In doing so, it expects to get rid of the problem of “postmodernism”.

Ok, this is not a small problem. I've looked into it, and found that the ramifications of this choice are enormous. There is also a structure here: the broader majority actually have no use for philosophy, so their own psychology is better served by notions that embrace simplicity. So it is that those who feel that they have no use for philosophy defend themselves from the clumsy complexity of college graduates, along with the real complexity of meaning that exists beyond the ken of basic, popular psychology.

The institute of psychology, however, now feeling renewed vigor, immediately steps in to label those who feel some complexity in life as “grandiose”. It's false from the point of view of philosophy, but completely the right things to do from the point of view of the needs of the majority (since they don't actually need philosophy and feel confused by it, as evidenced by the surfeit of confused college graduates over the past couple of decades).

I, myself, was in another way completely confused by this turn of events. Why was something treated as grandiose just because it was complex? I couldn't get my points across no matter how hard I tried, and found myself questioning whether they were too complex to meet the criteria for human understanding. It didn't add up that more difficult thoughts ought not to be conveyed, since this higher level of complexity merely meant a wider net for reality. But I found myself constantly stymied and forced to attempt to express myself in a range that was much narrower than my needs.

In terms of philosophy versus popular and institutional psychology, it was philosophy that came to my rescue. Or, rather it was a very careful read if Nietzsche's Will to Power that clued me in to what was actually happening. I could understand it in terms of a rift developing between popular needs and values and those who actually needed philosophy to make sense of their lives.

So, in conclusion , JP as a leader of the masses, or more general populace, is right. Or right so long as Nietzsche’s views are right. There ought to be a limit to what levels of complexity the masses should endure. (On this they both tacitly agree ). In Nietzsche ‘s view, philosophy ought not to be spread around, but should be for those who need it. The majority do not need it. When philosophy, as complexity, enters the popular terrain, it only makes things worse. (Whether or not one agrees with this, the material reality of this consensus is demonstrated in just how many followers JP has accrued.)

To add another personal note, this sense of Nietzschean elitism with regard to philosophy doesn't entirely sit well with me, but I've had my own sense of complexity persecuted and run to ground to such a high degree that for my own personal safety and sanctity of mind I am obliged to side with it anyway.