How is it like to be P ? - Page 4

Leysing · 09-26-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

State institutions work in the same way.
This are some examples of how society full of Ps looks like.

Which is a problem to Js only.

Antisocial one · 09-26-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The more J you are, the more Ps there seem to be

I am aware of this efect.

Antisocial one · 09-26-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leysing

Which is a problem to Js only.

It is a problem for Ps also. It is just that they don't see the problem and that is why entire situation is dangerous.

disarray+disarray= bigger disarray

Jack Flak · 09-26-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

disarray+disarray= bigger disarray= A-OK

Fixed.

Antisocial one · 09-26-2008, 06:55 PM

So if I get it right. Ps are not defending from this because they think this is ok.

INTJMom · 09-26-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

...
I don't agree with this.
...

How dare you disagree with me?! I happen to be right!

(This is meant to be funny. Please enjoy the irony. It's an INTJ joke.)

Jack Flak · 09-26-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antisocial one

So if I get it right. Ps are not defending from this because they think this is ok.

In general, that is correct.

Grayscale · 09-26-2008, 07:05 PM

i usually score above 95%+ "P" on tests, so i think i have a pretty good understanding of it.

here's my explanation...

P is about making a masterpiece (or as close to it as possible) of the moment with what you have available. i realize that as time extends into the future, the possible variables and thus possible outcomes expand (like a cone), so in regards to the distant future, thinking ahead has to be on a very wide-scale basis.

as that point in the future begins to near the present, the variables begin to contract until it reaches the singular path of the present. during all of this, i am dynamically calculating my decisions based on the underlying patterns of accumulated past observations as well as future predictions to whatever degree i can manage while retaining accuracy.

this framework is extended forward into time only as far as it's logical foundation can be maintained based on the pattern of past observations. at a certain point, this crumbles and the need for further concrete information is needed to determine one thing or another ahead of time... instead of ignoring this, i "wait and see", literally, to gather further observation and decide when the time is right.

this means detailed planning is only achievable in the very short term, and due to the dynamic, on-the-fly nature of how decisions are calculated, when new variables come up they can usually be seamlessly added into the equation, making "P" very opportunistic.

with that said, I also have learned that in order to avoid situations where options are detrimentally limited, lots of forethought is needed. however, how holistic this is depends on how far into the future it is as well as how much information or experience is already available. in regards to ISTPs, "the master of tools", it is most often that these pre-conceived ideas are the tools we intuitively will develop for things yet to come (Ni) and when any situation arises, we apply our store of ideas to each situation on a custom, case-by-case basis, in real time.

the downside to this approach is that it can be entirely too reactionary. what this means is that instead of identifying a goal, regardless of whether one can know for certain whether it can be attained, the strong "P" tends to "float along", and in that sense are prone to leaving destiny in the hands of the environment instead of themselves. the more deterministic approach usually lends to, at least, accomplishing some degree of what was determined.

Antisocial one · 09-26-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INTJMom

How dare you disagree with me?! I happen to be right!

(This is meant to be funny. Please enjoy the irony. It's an INTJ joke.)

This is not what I am arguing at all. People should question everthing.

I am saying that if you create disarray you are in serious trouble and disarray usually growns with time so in the end everything could end up in disaster.

substitute · 09-26-2008, 07:08 PM

Grayscale, that was a masterpiece.
*applause*

(and you too PT.)

Did I ever express my appreciation for ISTP's? oh yes, I did, I remember now. I started the ISTP appreciation thread. Now I remember why

09-26-2008, 07:08 PM	#40 (permalink)
substitute Closet ENTJ Join Date: May 2007 Type: ENTP Location: Europe Posts: 4,471	Grayscale, that was a masterpiece. applause (and you too PT.) Did I ever express my appreciation for ISTP's? oh yes, I did, I remember now. I started the ISTP appreciation thread. Now I remember why __________________ Ils se démerdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG! And even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the Lord of Song With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah - Leonard Cohen

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-26-2008, 06:55 PM	#35 (permalink)
Antisocial one I question everything Join Date: Jun 2008 Type: INTJ Posts: 2,865	So if I get it right. Ps are not defending from this because they think this is ok.

09-26-2008, 07:05 PM	#38 (permalink)
Grayscale you'll get over it Join Date: Dec 2007 Type: istp Posts: 1,949	i usually score above 95%+ "P" on tests, so i think i have a pretty good understanding of it. here's my explanation... P is about making a masterpiece (or as close to it as possible) of the moment with what you have available. i realize that as time extends into the future, the possible variables and thus possible outcomes expand (like a cone), so in regards to the distant future, thinking ahead has to be on a very wide-scale basis. as that point in the future begins to near the present, the variables begin to contract until it reaches the singular path of the present. during all of this, i am dynamically calculating my decisions based on the underlying patterns of accumulated past observations as well as future predictions to whatever degree i can manage while retaining accuracy. this framework is extended forward into time only as far as it's logical foundation can be maintained based on the pattern of past observations. at a certain point, this crumbles and the need for further concrete information is needed to determine one thing or another ahead of time... instead of ignoring this, i "wait and see", literally, to gather further observation and decide when the time is right. this means detailed planning is only achievable in the very short term, and due to the dynamic, on-the-fly nature of how decisions are calculated, when new variables come up they can usually be seamlessly added into the equation, making "P" very opportunistic. with that said, I also have learned that in order to avoid situations where options are detrimentally limited, lots of forethought is needed. however, how holistic this is depends on how far into the future it is as well as how much information or experience is already available. in regards to ISTPs, "the master of tools", it is most often that these pre-conceived ideas are the tools we intuitively will develop for things yet to come (Ni) and when any situation arises, we apply our store of ideas to each situation on a custom, case-by-case basis, in real time. the downside to this approach is that it can be entirely too reactionary. what this means is that instead of identifying a goal, regardless of whether one can know for certain whether it can be attained, the strong "P" tends to "float along", and in that sense are prone to leaving destiny in the hands of the environment instead of themselves. the more deterministic approach usually lends to, at least, accomplishing some degree of what was determined.