User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 38

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Well I'm not sure how much stock you put in the 8 cognitive functions test, but my fuctions turned up in an order more like this.

    Ne ... excellent
    Ti ... excellent
    Fi ... good
    Ni ... good
    Te ... average
    Se ... average
    Fe ... poor
    Si ... poor

    My Fi is really developed, but my Fe is not really developed at all. Sharing, bonding through experience, social ettiquette, etc... never really did much for me and still doesn't. On the other hand I have a fairly well developed sense of personal values. My Fi is much stronger than my Fe regardless of what the theory says it is supposed to be.

    I'm not really saying that Ti is only good for analyzing, because I use it a lot. It's extremely practical. But I could never define myself by my ideas. Even before I knew about MBTI I envisioned myself as a great introverted thinker, i.e. an INTP type, but eventually I realized that it really wasn't me. The ideas have to be applied in some practical manner, and I didn't have a sense of purpose about how to apply these ideas, until I developed a personal morality.

    I tried getting my core from Ti, but I really think that only works for IxTP's. My identity seems to come more from wanting to have an impact on the world around me. I need a sense of purpose to do this and that comes from my Fi. Ti has always been insufficient in providing me with an identity.

    P.S. I really think Socrates is an ENTP rather than INTP.

    Ah yes, the cognitive functions test gave me a high Fi score and a high Ti score for INFPs.

    I think the case here is that its my Ti being influenced by Fe and thus resembling an Fi, and vice versa for INFPs.

    I agree that an ENTP is unlikely to find a sense of higher purpose with Ti alone, his aim must be externalized. When an ENTP finds a higher purpose, Ne will play a salient role, so will Fe. Though again, in order to start seeking the higher purpose, he must turn inwards, and that will likely be through Ti. There he will learn to implement Fe and Ne externally to meet the higher purpose that Ti has conjured, Fe will back Ti up. And in the same fashion as for the INTP, will resemble an Fi because it manifests primarily through Ti.

    Moreover, INTPs tend not to derive their sense of inner purpose through their ideas alone. But through the activity of passing assessments of the world internally. Spinoza was a great example of this. His chief doctrine on this matter was an intellectual love of god. Being a pantheist he believed that god was all, and hence infinite. Thought and imagination are properties of the infinite realm and hence we can access the infinite realm through a certain depth of thought. Henry David Thoreau has managed to find his higher purpose with Ti, though in a much less intricate fashion. Much of the same could be said for Jung's spirituality and how he took an impersonal approach to construct his views on eschatology.

    Spinoza's utterance on this matter sums it up well for the Ti oriented search for higher purpose. Faith can only insantiate obedience, but it does not give us truth. We can only truly believe in something strongly enough to devote our entire lives to if we see a reason to think that what we believe in is true.

    Hence, no belief can reasonably be expected to be held infallible till the end of time, so there isnt a particular philosophy that we can have absolute faith in forever. Contrary to what religions would like for us to believe. Yet, what we can do on this matter is make the search for truth our perennial quest.


    Socrates was an ENTP and not an INTP? That is certainly a claim of merit.

    Why would somebody say this?

    First of all, he was a great conversationist. Adaptable extremely well. Always had a sharp retort in nearly any dialogue without taking the time to ponder things like INTPs often need to. And most of all, he sought to influence others on a profound level.

    Well, we should also say that he cherished truth beyond all else. This was more important than influencing others. Pursuit of a higher purpose was seemingly a perennial quest for him which he never abandoned in favor of exploring new options like an ENTP may have in his shoes.

    Moreover, he was not very image conscious. Often he would stand in the markets in his reveries for hours alone, and when others would ask him why he came as he never buys anything--he'd answer.."I am astounded by all the things that they have that i dont need'..He always wore the same outfit..and everybody in town agreed that he was ugly and he was not in the least disturbed by this..All he wanted to do, seemingly was argue about philosophy, even when it was obvious that noone else is interested. He never bothered to take care of practical concerns, the search for truth is all that he knew...He was always impecunious because he never worked and as for his wife, he said that it builds your inner stamina to live with a capricious wife..When he saved his old friend in battle, he claimed he was driven by an internal purpose, he knew that this was the fair thing to do..And when his friend was later reviled, most people in his shoes would have regretted having saved him and renounced that person as a friend in their eyes..Yet Socrates stood firm by his word..and was not in the least worried about how he is disliked..seemingly hardly affected him at all..whilst an ENTP may have had some issues with fickleness and being overly opportunistic..and would likely be concerned with their public image, wouldnt want to let their reputation go down the drain as they at least want to be liked enough to be listened to. Influencing others is quite important.

    He refused to cooperate with tyrannical politicians and always did what he thought was right, what others thought seemingly had no value to him. And when he stood trial, he held firmly to his principles, even to the point where it came to a sink or swim time..All he had to say that he will pay a fine and he would have been released..but no..that went against his inner being. And in prison, he also could have escaped, but he chose to stay loyal to his principle that maintained the necessity to obey certain laws of authority under certain circumstances even if they make your circumstances unpropitious. Yet, an ENTP would likely be much more opportunistic here.

    Lastly, when the oracle told him that he is the wisest man in town, he couldnt believe it untill he could find evidence for this in hard reasoning for himself. That is why he went on to argue with people to see if that was really true. And when they have become agonized at him, he continued to speak what he thought was the truth. That he is wiser than them because he at least is wise enough to know that he is an ignoramous, whilst they are still under the illusion that they know something. An ENTP would likely be smoother than this and certainly wouldnt push it to the point where it may cost them exile or their life just for the sake of ensuring that they stay by their principles.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lets look at David Hume as a representative of the ENTP type, the greatest of ENTP philosophers.

    He was devoted to his principles and was repulsed by anything that doesn't involve in depth thinking.

    He was very externally focused and students of philosophy are often disappointed to discover that philosophy wasn't his life. He spent more time applying philosophy than philosophizing.

    Very eclectic. He was an eminent historian and a master of literature(this was one of his many hobbies). That is why he was one of the few philosophers who could style. He was also very politically active and in nearly everything he wrote, he wrote to influence. Writing for the sake of pondering ideas left him uninspired. Even when he wrote his philosophy, he always wrote for impact, he wrote to the general intelligent man, not some ivory tower academic. That is why he decided to become a man of letters and an essayist.

    He had many acquaintances and among them the famous INTP economist, Adam Smith. Who perhaps was one of the few, if not the only his close friend. Many acted like they were also, yet if we look further into the issue they were not, and Hume was not much disturbed by this. At one point he has made a friendship with a neurotic ISFP Rousseau, who would accuse him of plotting against him frequently, he suffered from persecution mania. Every time Rousseau apologized, Hume said he forgave him..Yet in his letters to his friends we often see him vent about how much of a madman Rousseau was and how he could hardly stand him..and in the end he says that he could respect him for his whole life..

    Hume followed his inner principles, but much more loosely than Socrates..he was a man of the world, and his principles served to build an inner identity so he would be more adept at making a difference...if he thought that he could go against his principles to win in the external world, he'd do it..so long as the discrepancy was not too grave. Moreover, Hume loved chaos theory beyond all else. He did not seek the absolute truth, he just wanted to play around with ideas and intellectual disorder fascinated him. He came to the conclusion that he can not reasonably know anything. That everything in the world is arbitrary, and all our delusions about how we know something boils down to no more than human psychology and unwitting self-deception. He wasnt disturbed in the least, he just moved on to writing history.




    To an INTP this would be unacceptable, as the purpose of getting involved in the world is strictly reinforcing the internal quest of finding this best principles possible and the most sound inner identity possible.

    Hume was also somewhat vain and finicky. He openly sought literary fame and was willing to compromise his interests in favor of winning admiration of others. That is why he quit philosophy to write history.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Socrates was an ENTP and not an INTP? That is certainly a claim of merit.

    Why would somebody say this?

    First of all, he was a great conversationist. Adaptable extremely well. Always had a sharp retort in nearly any dialogue without taking the time to ponder things like INTPs often need to. And most of all, he sought to influence others on a profound level.
    I would like to add that as far as we know he didn't write anything. Everything we know about Socrates essentially comes through Plato. I would think an INTP would be sure to write his ideas down. Also he seemed willing to approach relative strangers and challenge their thinking. He has a lot of things painting him to be an ENTP (which is why I think he as an ENTP).

    Well, we should also say that he cherished truth beyond all else. This was more important than influencing others. Pursuit of a higher purpose was seemingly a perennial quest for him which he never abandoned in favor of exploring new options like an ENTP may have in his shoes.
    While INTP philosophers seem content to "know" the truth, Socrates was intent on "living" the truth. I do believe that ENTP's can focus singularly on one goal especially one as open-ended as the pursuit of truth. But they will approach it from many different perspectives. They will talk to many different types of people and seek many different experiences (which is what Socrates did).

    Moreover, he was not very image conscious. Often he would stand in the markets in his reveries for hours alone, and when others would ask him why he came as he never buys anything--he'd answer.."I am astounded by all the things that they have that i dont need'..He always wore the same outfit..and everybody in town agreed that he was ugly and he was not in the least disturbed by this..All he wanted to do, seemingly was argue about philosophy, even when it was obvious that noone else is interested. He never bothered to take care of practical concerns, the search for truth is all that he knew...He was always impecunious because he never worked and as for his wife, he said that it builds your inner stamina to live with a capricious wife..When he saved his old friend in battle, he claimed he was driven by an internal purpose, he knew that this was the fair thing to do..And when his friend was later reviled, most people in his shoes would have regretted having saved him and renounced that person as a friend in their eyes..Yet Socrates stood firm by his word..and was not in the least worried about how he is disliked..seemingly hardly affected him at all..whilst an ENTP may have had some issues with fickleness and being overly opportunistic..and would likely be concerned with their public image, wouldnt want to let their reputation go down the drain as they at least want to be liked enough to be listened to. Influencing others is quite important.
    Well standing in a crowded public area and arguing with people is more in line with ENTP behavior than INTP. Both INTP's and ENTP's are known for appearing unconventional, but ENTP's are more likely to be obvious about it. Both can be lazy, non-working types. Valor is more of an ENTP trait though. You are right in that ENTP's are concerned with their public image, but often it is to go against authority and accepted norms. ENTP's want to stand out and be a spectacle, and they will go against the grain to do so.

    He refused to cooperate with tyrannical politicians and always did what he thought was right, what others thought seemingly had no value to him. And when he stood trial, he held firmly to his principles, even to the point where it came to a sink or swim time..All he had to say that he will pay a fine and he would have been released..but no..that went against his inner being. And in prison, he also could have escaped, but he chose to stay loyal to his principle that maintained the necessity to obey certain laws of authority under certain circumstances even if they make your circumstances unpropitious. Yet, an ENTP would likely be much more opportunistic here.
    Again ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. Also Ne is so detached that it makes the ENTP somewhat fearless to the point of defying common sense. The ENTP can go ahead and drink hemlock, thinking objectively that it is the right thing to do. Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP.

    Lastly, when the oracle told him that he is the wisest man in town, he couldnt believe it untill he could find evidence for this in hard reasoning for himself. That is why he went on to argue with people to see if that was really true. And when they have become agonized at him, he continued to speak what he thought was the truth. That he is wiser than them because he at least is wise enough to know that he is an ignoramous, whilst they are still under the illusion that they know something. An ENTP would likely be smoother than this and certainly wouldnt push it to the point where it may cost them exile or their life just for the sake of ensuring that they stay by their principles.
    Depends on the ENTP. Some ENTP's want to maintain a good image. Others just want to argue with people and piss them off just to prove a point. Socrates falls in the latter category. INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them. That is really ENTP behavior.

    In regards to David Hume you say:
    He came to the conclusion that he can not reasonably know anything.
    This is very similar to Socrates. The point of "The Apology" is that no one is wise. The difference is that at least Socrates knew that he was not wise. This conclusion is not all that different from the one you say about David Hume.

    Socrates really has all the signs of an ENTP. If you compare him to Aristotle an INTP of the roughly same culture, you see that their outlooks on life and their approach to things are considerably different.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #3
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I would like to add that as far as we know he didn't write anything. Everything we know about Socrates essentially comes through Plato. I would think an INTP would be sure to write his ideas down. Also he seemed willing to approach relative strangers and challenge their thinking. He has a lot of things painting him to be an ENTP (which is why I think he as an ENTP).



    While INTP philosophers seem content to "know" the truth, Socrates was intent on "living" the truth. I do believe that ENTP's can focus singularly on one goal especially one as open-ended as the pursuit of truth. But they will approach it from many different perspectives. They will talk to many different types of people and seek many different experiences (which is what Socrates did).



    Well standing in a crowded public area and arguing with people is more in line with ENTP behavior than INTP. Both INTP's and ENTP's are known for appearing unconventional, but ENTP's are more likely to be obvious about it. Both can be lazy, non-working types. Valor is more of an ENTP trait though. You are right in that ENTP's are concerned with their public image, but often it is to go against authority and accepted norms. ENTP's want to stand out and be a spectacle, and they will go against the grain to do so.


    Again ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. Also Ne is so detached that it makes the ENTP somewhat fearless to the point of defying common sense. The ENTP can go ahead and drink hemlock, thinking objectively that it is the right thing to do. Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP.


    Depends on the ENTP. Some ENTP's want to maintain a good image. Others just want to argue with people and piss them off just to prove a point. Socrates falls in the latter category. INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them. That is really ENTP behavior.

    In regards to David Hume you say:


    This is very similar to Socrates. The point of "The Apology" is that no one is wise. The difference is that at least Socrates knew that he was not wise. This conclusion is not all that different from the one you say about David Hume.

    Socrates really has all the signs of an ENTP. If you compare him to Aristotle an INTP of the roughly same culture, you see that their outlooks on life and their approach to things are considerably different.


    Before we proceed, let me make sure I understand your argument properly.

    Proposition: Socrates is an ENTP

    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I would like to add that as far as we know he didn't write anything.
    So, because he didn't write anything it seems like he was more of a conversational learner than academically minded one. ENTPs learn better through discussion and INTPs through reading, writing and contemplating.

    An INTP would prefer to further his thought experiments privately through writing and reflecting rather than discussion. Yet, again INTPs are also not interested in writing unless something captured their interest as communication tends not to be their strong aspect. Though your point is well taken, the not having written anything aspect applies better to ENTPs rather than INTPs. INTP


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    While INTP philosophers seem content to "know" the truth, Socrates was intent on "living" the truth. I do believe that ENTP's can focus singularly on one goal especially one as open-ended as the pursuit of truth. But they will approach it from many different perspectives. They will talk to many different types of people and seek many different experiences (which is what Socrates did)
    So, if Socrates was an INTP, he would not be so expressive about his lifestyle. And the way he approached the matter emphasized Ne more than Ti. He was more concerned with reviewing the matter from many perspectives rather than narrowing it down to find the most sound ideas possible. Seems to me however. An INTP would be more interested in living out the life of a rationalist than an ENTP because the Ti is stronger. The ENTP would be much more eclectic about their lifestyle and hence the rationalist aspect would be significantly less notable. Yet, however much of it they had would be more visible than that of an INTP (who may be more of a rationalist than an ENTP because of the Ti primacy), as again they are more in tune with the external world and have a need to be expressive about their inner agenda. I'd argue that INTPs are not less likely than ENTPs to live out the life of a rationalist. Spinoza, Descartes, Aristotle and Einstein were certainly dedicated not to living the truth, as you say, but rather being as candid of thinkers as possible and this manifested externally only incidentally.

    Now if we compare these men to devoted ENTP rationalists like David Hume and Bertrand Russell. We will see that these two actually made a conscious effort to externalize their rationalism oriented lifestyle, but this aspect was significantly weaker than in the INTPs. Their sense of inner purpose was weaker. They were also more eclectic. Both of these men were politically active and held intense interests in fields like arts, literature and history , whilst INTPs did not. In short, INTPs are more dedicated to living out the life that they want to live, yet ENTPs are more expressive about it. Hence, the notion that ENTPs want to orient their life around philosophical rationalism more than INTPs do is illusory. INTPs are questors like INFPs. They wish to devote their lives to the higher purpose they have discovered for themselves. Unlike the Extroverts, they believe that this higher purpose is to be discovered and followed through upon internally in the realm of mind. Whilst ENTPs would think that the inner purpose must manifest itself directly externally. If Socrates was an ENTP his inner purpose would manifest directly in a form of him going to the market specifically to the end of sharing his wisdom with others. If he was an INTP, he would hardly think about his external ventures at all. All he'd say to himself is that he has ideas to ponder and he wants to further his thought experiments by discussing them with others. It seems that this is what he was doing. Going to the market was means to the end of his internal goals, yet for an ENTP it would be an end in itself. Influencing people is a direct objective to be met, yet for the INTP it is not important and may arrive only incidentally, an INTP would be satisfied if his inner thought experiments were received the desired treatment--as he then would have met his inner standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Well standing in a crowded public area and arguing with people is more in line with ENTP behavior than INTP. Both INTP's and ENTP's are known for appearing unconventional, but ENTP's are more likely to be obvious about it. Both can be lazy, non-working types. Valor is more of an ENTP trait though. You are right in that ENTP's are concerned with their public image, but often it is to go against authority and accepted norms. ENTP's want to stand out and be a spectacle, and they will go against the grain to do so.)
    I would argue that valor is a property of a strong Thinking personality. Introverted Thinking is as 'T' as it gets. If we accept this premise, it follows that INTPs are higher on valor, yet ENTPs seem to be more not because they are more courageous, but becuase they are more expressive about how courageous they are. They would have less 'valor points', because their T is lower.

    I would think, however, an ENTP would go to the markets to engage in the social scene. Much like ENFPs (Ne dominant), they enjoy interplaying with the external environment for the sake of influencing it. Yet Socrates had little desire to influence. He was content just standing back and quietly analyzing the situation. Seems like he argued not to put on a stunt or entertain people, but to further his thought experiments. He was driven by his inner purpose, whilst an ENTP would be driven by the inner purpose to a significantly lesser extent. They may engage in behaviors similar to that of Socrates for the purposes of adventure. The distinction to take note of here is that ENTPs tend to be more of risk takers because they think things through less, though less self-confident because their T is weaker. You can argue that valor has more to do with a dominant Ne rather than T, yet this would sound highly unpersuasive because ENFPs, also dominant Ne type, are much less comfortable with taking risks that NTPs do, likely due to their lack of T.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Again ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. Also Ne is so detached that it makes the ENTP somewhat fearless to the point of defying common sense. The ENTP can go ahead and drink hemlock, thinking objectively that it is the right thing to do. Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP..)
    Yes, I like how you put it. An ENTP is more likely to make a spectacle of himself. ENTP has more of this natural performer aspect to him and tends to enjoy shock value more. Again, as mentioned, an ENTP is more likely to take risks like drinking hemlock on an intuitive spur of a moment. Yet it seems to me that Socrates wasnt acting on a spur of a moment. He was dedicated to his inner purpose, and his courage came from a strong Ti nature. Socrates was behaving the way he was behaving not to put on a show, but merely as an entailment of his inner mindset.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Even an INTP would consider against this type of behavior more than an ENTP..)
    If this higher purpose that we speak of here is what INPs live and die for, then they should be willing to lay down their lives for that. As again, the behavior of Socrates was an entailment of his inner beliefs. He was not just acting out, it was a well thought out action. That is why he purposefully chose not to escape prison when he had a chance to, and why he didnt opt to pay a fine instead of taking a sentence. He explained this in a way that his beliefs lead him to think that it is righteous to obey the particular laws of society that are imposed on him right now under the circumstances that he is under at this point. This was a thoroughly thought-out action, not a stunt, and not an EP spur of a moment act.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Depends on the ENTP. Some ENTP's want to maintain a good image. Others just want to argue with people and piss them off just to prove a point. Socrates falls in the latter category. INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them. That is really ENTP behavior.
    Once more, Socrates wasnt just going on adventures. He was arguing with people to further his thought experiments. He did not think about how this would piss them off, unlike an ENTP who would be poignantly aware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    INTP's are not known to seek people out are argue with them.
    I understand how you could claim that ENTPs are more likely to challenge people in debates than INTPs simply because they are more outgoing. Yet the case here is that the behavior of Socrates was an entailment of a higher purpose. Moreover, I would maintain that INTPs are more of challengers because of a stronger Ti nature. They engage others in debate almost strictly for the purpose of being challenged first and foremost, and challenging others. Whilst ENTPs would do this more for the sake of adventure and exploring ideas, challenging and being challenged is of lesser priority. This is why INTPs almost always enjoy their ideas questioned and going head to head with others in debates, yet ENTPs at times get irritated by others challenging them because this precludes them from exploring ideas and reviewing multiple perspectives. They tend to dislike the challenger aspect in this case because it may entail dismissal of ideas, and ENTPs as a dominant N type dont want to dismiss anything as they want to review all that can be reviewed with as open of a mind as possible. Socrates argued to challenge and be challenged, external circumstances like pissing others off or thinking of how this may impact him later or how his persona would be influenced by this played little role. This is typical of a radical Introverted Type (too intense of an inner focus and hence lack of an awareness of an external environment. ENTPs tend to be most poignantly aware of their external environment, often cant help but be aware, yet INTPs can easily shut it off in favor of their inner purpose which is seemingly what socrates did. His inner purpose was search for truth and inner clarity and consistency which he sought to advance towards by challenging and being challenged by others.)

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    In regards to David Hume you say:


    This is very similar to Socrates. The point of "The Apology" is that no one is wise. The difference is that at least Socrates knew that he was not wise. This conclusion is not all that different from the one you say about David Hume.
    The difference between Hume and Socrates is that Hume started off as a chaos theorist. He was more of an Intuitonist than an analyst. His visions convinced him of the veracity of his radical skepticism and then he used logic as means to the end of showing how his ideas ring true.

    Socrates started off as an analytical system builder who came to the same conclusions as Hume for a very different reason. Socrates did not believe that he didn't know anything untill he thoroughly analyzed the matter and then decided on it. Yet Hume started off thinking that he knew nothing before having thought things through.

    Ti was subordinate to Ne for Hume, yet for Socrates Ti was preponderous over Ne. Seeking the truth and challenging others and being challenged was seemingly all that his life was about. Bertrand Russell once famously said that he used philosophy as means to the end of making his life more interesting. He was inspired by Hume to forge such an outlook on life. Essentially Hume philosophized to help him become a better visionary and more adept in the external world. Yet for INTPs philosophizing as an end in itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Socrates really has all the signs of an ENTP. If you compare him to Aristotle an INTP of the roughly same culture, you see that their outlooks on life and their approach to things are considerably different.
    They differed in appearance, yet at the essence both of these men were primarily driven by the search for truth(analogously to INFP Milton's search for paradise) and perfection of their nature (competence) one of ways in which they aspired to attain by challenging and being challenged by others.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    ...
    I am not sure if I understand very well the typo dynamics and all that, but I have an objection on Socrates being either ENTP or INTP:

    Socrates was a person too concerned with inner values, what is right and wrong, morality and morals, etc. He was debating issues like virtue, justice, etc.
    The "inner voice" or conscience doesn't strike me as a TP characteristic.

    Wouldn’t these characteristics define more an XSFJ?

  5. #5
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    There is nothing myopical about turning every discussion into a philosophy discussion because nothing escapes the province of philosophy.

    If I really thought about how others would react to this, perhaps I'd notice. But again, I dont see why that should matter as I am driven only by my sense of inner/higher purpose.
    So if you're trying to get a cat out of a burning tree you think it's a good time to start talking about (insert philosopher here)?

    And you're basically saying that other people are just receptacles for the sound waves of your voice. Doesn't matter if they want to hear it, only that you want to say it. So you just like hearing yourself talk?
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  6. #6
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    So if you're trying to get a cat out of a burning tree you think it's a good time to start talking about (insert philosopher here)?

    And you're basically saying that other people are just receptacles for the sound waves of your voice. Doesn't matter if they want to hear it, only that you want to say it. So you just like hearing yourself talk?

    Tell me what you know about Introverted Judgment before we continue this discussion..having things as they are..it doesnt look like we are getting anywhere..

    As I already told you..it doesnt matter what anybody thinks or what the external environment is like..it is only the inner essence that matters which can not be assessed by any external standard...you're running into the incommensurability problem here.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #7
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Tell me what you know about Introverted Judgment before we continue this discussion..having things as they are..it doesnt look like we are getting anywhere..

    As I already told you..it doesnt matter what anybody thinks or what the external environment is like..it is only the inner essence that matters which can not be assessed by any external standard...you're running into the incommensurability problem here.
    Let me look up "incommensurability" and I'll get right back to you.

    ETA:
    my op ic
    1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
    2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
    3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

    I think your unwillingness to acknowledge that some external standards are useful and beneficial leads you to your myopic belief of the bolded part above.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  8. #8
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lastrailway View Post
    I am not sure if I understand very well the typo dynamics and all that, but I have an objection on Socrates being either ENTP or INTP:

    Socrates was a person too concerned with inner values, what is right and wrong, morality and morals, etc. He was debating issues like virtue, justice, etc.
    The "inner voice" or conscience doesn't strike me as a TP characteristic.

    Wouldn’t these characteristics define more an XSFJ?
    SFJs are driven by social conscience. Doing what you're supposed to do or doing what is right by external standard.

    INPs are driven by an inner standard. Their values are not concerned with what society considers right, but with higher morality. INFPs are concerned witht the more person-centered values like compassion and harmony of feelings, yet INTPs with the higher philosophical virtues. Like honesty, clarity of thought and impartiality.

    Rene Descartes (INTP) once stumbled across Rembrandt an ISFP painter..and he asked him..what are you looking at...and Descartes having snapped out of his reveries replied in an awkward INTPish fashion...uh...so they talked..and in the end Rembrandt says..--You philosophers suck the very soul out of people and I am going to give it back to them!

    Rembrandt was implying that Philosophers are impersonal and make it impossible for people to have strong personal values..

    Yet towards the end of his life he reconsidered that proposition and in one of his paintings the theme was why philosophers talk in such abstruse, incomprehensible words..and he came to think that this is because they are seeking another world...just like John Milton was seeking his paradise..their values derive from their impersonally inclined search for a higher purpose.

    TPs are not any less focused on values than FPs, the common ground is introverted judgment. Just because they are less expressive about their values does not mean they are any less devoted to them as they are often more resolute and tough-minded about their inner purpose than FPs.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #9
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Let me look up "incommensurability" and I'll get right back to you.

    ETA:
    my op ic
    1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
    2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
    3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

    I think your unwillingness to acknowledge that some external standards are useful and beneficial leads you to your myopic belief of the bolded part above.
    I am not saying ignore the external standard altogether, just make sure that it be no more than a serf of your inner principles.

    I dont think that I am being myopic here, looks like it is the other way around. I only dismiss what you say untill I've thought about it (Ti), and can explain why I am dismissing it. Yet, you on the other hand are dismissing right away because what was said that does not come to terms with your external standards.

    By and large being myopic is a problem that Js are more likely to be afflicted with than Ps. Especially EJs.

    And remember, you can say whatever you want so long as you can back it up with sound reasoning, if you cannot, i dont see how you'd be in a position to accuse me of being myopic for dismissing what you said. As there is no reason why a claim for which we have no reason to assume to be true should not be dismissed.

    Yet the difference between Introverted Judgment and Extroverted Judgment is as follows; Introverted Judgment first thinks things through and if at that point it has found the propounded idea to be unacceptable it is dismissed. Extroverted Judgment does not think things through, just measures up the propounded idea to the external standard (orthodox dogma), and if it doesnt line up it is immediately dismissed.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Dude you're doing it now!!
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

Similar Threads

  1. Each type in 3 words.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-02-2016, 07:32 AM
  2. No Type
    By paulwhy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-05-2015, 09:01 PM
  3. Help figuring out your type?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: 09-25-2012, 12:12 PM
  4. Socrates' Type
    By Mal12345 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 02:53 AM
  5. [NF] What sort of topics are NF type topics?
    By Alienclock in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 09:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO