Child Prodigies

[The Ü™]

I dunno, Fischer struck me as a neurotic INTJ, the kind of type who dwells on paranoid thinking.

 

[JustDave]

True, but chess is also a game which heavily relies upon tactics, which is would more accurately be described as the realm of STPs.

Not to derail your thread but a surprising number of people do not know the difference between strategy, logistics and tactics.

As usual I can think of evidence to support either conclusion as had might have had preference for Si (if primarily relied on the memorization of known strategies) or Ni (if he primarily created new strategies). That being the case I will gladly defer this decision to you.

 

[MerkW]

Not to derail your thread but a surprising number of people do not know the difference between strategy, logistics and tactics.

Indeed. Such irritates me indefinitely. STJs are more logistic, STPs are more into tactics, and NTJs are more strategic.

 

[MerkW]

Speaking of this, here is another similarly paranoid individual whom I have had some difficulty typing. Again, definitely IxTx:

 

[The Ü™]

The Unibomber is an INTP, I think, possibly INTJ. And I'm not just suggesting that because he's sociopath, either. I believe even Keirsey typed him as an INTJ somewhere in his website.

NTs as a whole, however, are most likely to be the paranoid types, because of their combination of N's imagination and abstract thought and T's skepticism and intellectual independence.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Speaking of this, here is another similarly paranoid individual whom I have had some difficulty typing. Again, definitely IxTx:

I'm pretty sure he's INTP.

 

[Jae Rae]

Tactics vs. Strategy

Indeed. Such irritates me indefinitely. STJs are more logistic, STPs are more into tactics, and NTJs are more strategic.

I concede ISTP is possible. From Wiki:

"Chess computers are considered superhuman at tactics, but rather spotty at strategy. The fact that computers can dominate the best humans suggests that chess is primarily a tactical game."

But something about Fischer still says INTJ to me.

Jae Rae

 

[JustDave]

But something about Fischer still says INTJ to me.

Jae Rae

I understand your belief. Although I should not re-iterate my previous point as I cannot defend it, nevertheless I just cannot imagine the stereotypical ISTP playing chess.

 

[Nadir]

"Chess computers are considered superhuman at tactics, but rather spotty at strategy. The fact that computers can dominate the best humans suggests that chess is primarily a tactical game."

The thing with chess is that for all the strategizing you do, you'll also need to execute it properly with the proper tactical maneouvers. This is because strategy is abstract and tactics is concrete -- the moves (tactics) represent the strategy.

Tactics can arise without strategy, -- such as seeing a sudden mating or a forking combination brought on by the opponent's blunder, leading to a win/material advantage-- but the rewards of strategy can not be received without tactics.

However, strategy defines the grandmaster more, simply because the point of strategizing is to create oppurtunity for such lucrative tactics to occur -- to increase the chances of your opponent making the last miniscule mistake, so that you win, having made the second last miniscule mistake.

So I'll probably go for INTP or INTJ for Bobby Fischer. I don't see J any more than I see P.

NOTE: I'm an unrated player, but my rating would be 1400-1500 at best.

 

[MerkW]

I think INTJ should be the final verdict on Fischer's type.

 

[JustDave]

I think INTJ should be the final verdict on Fischer's type.

I second that motion

 

[The Ü™]

I third that motion.

 

[JustDave]

Incidentally, regarding the Unabomber and the many other "interesting" members of society , is it possible that many of them are so insane that their personalities defy classification?

 

[mippus]

Yes, let's type all chessplayers INTJ's!

 

[The Ü™]

Incidentally, regarding the Unabomber and the many other "interesting" members of society , is it possible that many of them are so insane that their personalities defy classification?

What exactly is insane?

 

[JustDave]

What exactly is insane?

Good question. To me it means severe mental disorder. Although severe is a very subjective term.

 

[The Ü™]

Good question. To me it means severe mental disorder. Although severe is a very subjective term.

I think a person should only be labeled as insane if it's interfering with his/her own subjective quality of life -- if they are under personal stress -- not how well they fit into society. After all, mental or personality disorders are just certain behavioral traits classified by humans within the social bias.

A classic example is how loners are said to be unhealthy because they are independent or how imaginative people are said to have a mental disorder. And this is often how intelligent people often end up in special ed classes, even though there is nothing wrong with them outside of the bias within the authority.

Both loners and imaginative people are also victims of bullying, which I would think intensifies their likelihood of being diagnosed with a psychological disorder and of becoming more antisocial. This is probably how N types (regardless of I/E preference) become more misanthropic, all because society values more practical types.

 

[JustDave]

I think a person should only be labeled as insane if it's interfering with his/her own subjective quality of life -- if they are under personal stress -- not how well they fit into society. After all, mental or personality disorders are just certain behavioral traits classified by humans within the social bias.

A classic example is how loners are said to be unhealthy because they are independent or how imaginative people are said to have a mental disorder. And this is often how intelligent people often end up in special ed classes, even though there is nothing wrong with them outside of the bias within the authority.

Both loners and imaginative people are also victims of bullying, which I would think intensifies their likelihood of being diagnosed with a psychological disorder and of becoming more antisocial. This is probably how N types (regardless of I/E preference) become more misanthropic, all because society values more practical types.

I couldn't agree more. It's all relative. If 99% of society had vivid hallucinations then they would be considered normal while the hallucination free 1% would be considered mentally ill.

 

[MerkW]

Incidentally, regarding the Unabomber and the many other "interesting" members of society , is it possible that many of them are so insane that their personalities defy classification?

Definitely quite probable. However, such people can usually be at least placed within some MBTi categorization parameters.

Yes, let's type all chessplayers INTJ's!

I have a counter-example.

 

[The Ü™]

Definitely quite probable. However, such people can usually be at least placed within some MBTi categorization parameters.

I tend to believe there is no such thing as insanity, only different sorts of complexities in personality. So everyone can potentially be typed.