User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 231

Thread: Rant on INTPs

  1. #131
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Bless them, they're like a rehabilitated Borg sometimes in groups - trying so hard to fit in and join the conversation, looking for something they can respond to, and end up leaping in with an etymology of the phrase 'check mate' when someone mentions that they're going to buy a chess board... haha...

    Close your eyes and FEEEEEEL the tumbleweed
    haha

  2. #132
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    ...Unfortunately, introverted judgers (Ps), tend to have little regard for etiquette. Aspecially ITPs. This is the case because only ethical actions that show integrity of inner character have merit. Otherwise it is mere cant. As for example, Js will often do good without being good. Be polite, without being sincere. As you've implied this is what those INTPs who were rude to you should do. What good would it have been for them to be polite to you if they never meant you well?
    Etiquette is what makes civilization civilized.
    It is socially acceptable everywhere.

    I can admire people who refuse to act but out of integrity,
    but even Bambi was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

  3. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Etiquette is what makes civilization civilized.
    It is socially acceptable everywhere.
    No it is not. What makes civilization civlilized is collaboration, not ettiquete. In fact, it is collobaration through competition in out businesses and science and technology that seems to seperate us most from "savages".

    This may be somewhat tangential to what you were talking about, but Jeff Dahmer belived strongly in etiquette as well.

    Morality is not just manners on a larger scale. IMO that equating morality and manner is a bad thing. I believe we should not confuse offence with true harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I can admire people who refuse to act but out of integrity,
    but even Bambi was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
    Imagine if our Civil Rights leaders acted that way. I am sure they had plenty of criticism for the Jim Crow laws and they said those not-so-nice things.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #134
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    You can only seige the fortress with hard logic. That is Ti, your faculties appear to be dearth of this subtance.
    Or just pass over the fortress completely and go visit a more hospitable and accessible town. *shrug*

    There can be no doubt that we all have intuitions and feelings and they intermingle with our thinking. To be objective means not to eliminate those faculties, but merely seperate your reasoning from them.
    Is that possible? Can we truly separate it? How do we determine whether or not we've separated it? How can we possibly stand outside of our own process? How do we speak and think without words -- or at least be able to articulate and be self-aware of what our thoughts are, without words?

    I'm sure by now you've understood that what you describe is an ideal, but one that we will never reach. We're all flawed and limited... and I think that was her point.

    Ps, especially NPs tend to be very subtle in their communication. They'd expect you to pick up on their cues intuitively, as they apply their intuition to the external world. (NP is a code for Extroverted Intuition).
    Then apparently there is a flaw on both sides -- her misperceptions of their intention, and their misperceptions of what everyone else should be capable of.

    Communication is a two-way street, you know. Both sides need to ante up. And technically, I'd give a "guest" or a newer member a little more flex, and expect more of those who are already part of the group, if you have to force me to make a flat-out ruling.

    Unfortunately, introverted judgers (Ps), tend to have little regard for etiquette. Aspecially ITPs. This is the case because only ethical actions that show integrity of inner character have merit. Otherwise it is mere cant. As for example, Js will often do good without being good. Be polite, without being sincere. As you've implied this is what those INTPs who were rude to you should do. What good would it have been for them to be polite to you if they never meant you well?
    Typical Ti obfuscation, like FineLine mentioned earlier. We don't need a philosophical analysis or similar. This is not a philosophical question.

    Situation:

    Round #1: She was a new member, she didn't know people yet, and they were expecting her to properly interpret their jokes. She tried to ignore it and when it persisted, she got frustrated.

    Round #2: She finally complained, and instead of apologizing and having both sides compromise and say, "oops, sorry, didn't mean it, we're all friends now, right?", instead now we're into a debate about who (effectively) should have known better and why the other side wasn't perceptive enough to change their behavior.

    This is really a minor blot and can be compensated for by both sides just making their intentions clear, apologizing, and moving on. Don't complicate things unnecessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    No it is not. What makes civilization civlilized is collaboration, not ettiquete. In fact, it is collobaration through competition in out businesses and science and technology that seems to seperate us most from "savages".

    This may be somewhat tangential to what you were talking about, but Jeff Dahmer belived strongly in etiquette as well.

    Morality is not just manners on a larger scale. IMO that equating morality and manner is a bad thing. I believe we should not confuse offence with true harm.
    I agree with your overall concept, but in this situation I think you're missing the point. This situation was about etiquette/kindness/communication; people weren't extending that to INTJMom; and, true, she overextended herself in trying to justify why people should have been kinder to her. Still, I'm inclined to give her some slack, and debunking her over-extension only obfuscates the issue, which has little to do about the philosophical difference between etiquette and collaboration.

    (I mean, come on -- when I reduced it to that, didn't you hear how SILLY it sounds to take it in that direction? No biggie. Just use that Ti to cut to the essence of the problem at hand, rather than getting esoteric on everyone.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Typical Ti obfuscation, like FineLine mentioned earlier. We don't need a philosophical analysis or similar. This is not a philosophical question.
    "Typical Ti obfuscation" - we really ought to have a discussion about the semantics loaded in that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Situation:

    Round #1: She was a new member, she didn't know people yet, and they were expecting her to properly interpret their jokes. She tried to ignore it and when it persisted, she got frustrated.

    Round #2: She finally complained, and instead of apologizing and having both sides compromise and say, "oops, sorry, didn't mean it, we're all friends now, right?", instead now we're into a debate about who (effectively) should have known better and why the other side wasn't perceptive enough to change their behavior.

    This is really a minor blot and can be compensated for by both sides just making their intentions clear, apologizing, and moving on. Don't complicate things unnecessarily.
    Somehow, context from other threads got mixed into this one. No-offence, Jennifer, but I thought we are ranting about INTPs in this thread in an attempt to understand the criticism (which leads to debate).

    Why continue posting and reading a thread on a discussion forum, if we can't discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I agree with your overall concept, but in this situation I think you're missing the point. This situation was about etiquette/kindness/communication; people weren't extending that to INTJMom; and, true, she overextended herself in trying to justify why people should have been kinder to her. Still, I'm inclined to give her some slack, and debunking her over-extension only obfuscates the issue, which has little to do about the philosophical difference between etiquette and collaboration.

    (I mean, come on -- when I reduced it to that, didn't you hear how SILLY it sounds to take it in that direction? No biggie. Just use that Ti to cut to the essence of the problem at hand, rather than getting esoteric on everyone.)
    I find the notion that we need to be familar with the context of posts from other threads to post on this thread ridiculous.

    I check in every once in a while on threads I am interested in, or new posts I find interesting, while at work. I have not (and will not) read the whole forum to post on a single thread.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #136
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    "Typical Ti obfuscation" - we really ought to have a discussion about the semantics loaded in that statement.
    That would be Ne, not Ti. Ne creates those sort of mental shifts... Ti tries to see the underlying essence. Ti combined with Ne can increase the complexity of the idea being employed in obfuscation (if you call it that), but it's really the Ne that shifts the context, and possibly addresses to a tangential/secondary idea to the primary one.

    Well, that's what I would have thought, anyway.

    Somehow, context from other threads got mixed into this one. No-offence, Jennifer, but I thought we are ranting about INTPs in this thread in an attempt to understand the criticism (which leads to debate).

    Why continue posting and reading a thread on a discussion forum, if we can't discuss?
    Many of the forum regulars have been here so long they've seen almost every thread, and forget that others haven't. Also, Jennifer is probably trying to avoid hurt feelings. This situation could be perceived as an argument rather than a discussion from an Fe perspective, and Jennifer's at a point in her life where she's more focused on Fe.


    I find the notion that we need to be familiar with the context of posts from other threads to post on this thread ridiculous.

    I check in every once in a while on threads I am interested in, or new posts I find interesting, while at work. I have not (and will not) read the whole forum to post on a single thread.
    Well, if you read carefully, you can see what they meant without actually seeing the other thread just from their tone and reaction. If you have a "feel" for how they think, you don't have to know what they actually said to follow the conversation. That's probably a bit harder to do without Ni or Fe, though.

    Since many of the posters in this thread are NP's... that was bound to happen. You'll find threads here derail and cross-reference each other frequently. We've gotten kind of lazy about keeping threads relevant and on-topic here, so your criticism is valid.

    But for the record, I personally never assume much context on this board aside from basic MBTI knowledge, unless I'm talking to a specific person.

  7. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Well, if you read carefully, you can see what they meant without actually seeing the other thread just from their tone and reaction. If you have a "feel" for how they think, you don't have to know what they actually said to follow the conversation. That's probably a bit harder to do without Ni or Fe, though.
    I have a hard time judging tone IRL, let alone, in text. I always thought it was actually a cultural thing. Some people swear every time they hear German, that the person speaking is angry. I know a person who says that every time he hears Cantonese, he thinks the speaker is bargaining (or something to that effect, I don't remember exactly). I have acquaintances who say that all tech-support people are "arrogant". Upon probing, it seems like they just find people using terms they don't know, "arrogant".

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #138
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    INTP's can't be morally beaten in arguments..

    1) They've thought about it more.
    2) They don't care if you'll hold a grudge after being beaten, other that they'll be proud of it.
    3) If there is a subject area where you would win an INTP, they probably dont care to argumentate about it, and dont feel bad for it.
    4) If they've been beaten, you've actually helped them forward.

  9. #139
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Etiquette is what makes civilization civilized.
    It is socially acceptable everywhere..

    What is the good of 'civilized'.?



    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I can admire people who refuse to act but out of integrity,
    but even Bambi was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

    Does Bambi not saying anything when he had nothing nice to say make him a better person? Wouldn't him having sinister motives towards the other person make him wicked irrespectively of whether he showed by saying something 'not nice' or not?

    You seem to be confusing the appearance for essence.
    "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. #140
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Is that possible? Can we truly separate it? How do we determine whether or not we've separated it? How can we possibly stand outside of our own process? How do we speak and think without words -- or at least be able to articulate and be self-aware of what our thoughts are, without words?.)
    Its possible. You either solved the mathematical problem correctly or you did not. Laws of hard logic either confirm that your reasoning is sound, or they do not. Abstract reasoning, or mathematical logic can be applied to any problem that we embark on. That is the cornerstone of rationalist epistemology and does well to outline the true essence of a Ti approach to ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm sure by now you've understood that what you describe is an ideal, but one that we will never reach. We're all flawed and limited... and I think that was her point.?.)
    Inability to arrive at that point completely is no good excuse to refuse to try. We can always attain primacy of dispassionate thought over our prejudices, that should be good enough. Accomplishments in the inner world of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers attest to the possibility of this goal can being achieved. What we have is a conformity of feelings to the orders of dispassionate thoughts, not a negation of feelings. After we have come to understand ourselves thoroughly, we will have come to terms with ourselves and will be anxiety free because we have accepted it all. Such an understanding always leads feelings to conform to thoughts. As for example when you solve a mathematical problem and have every reason to believe that it is true, feelings have nowhere to go but to cheer you on. This is how it will be when you have attained such an understanding in regards to more complex issues in life. Had you collected sufficient amount of information and reasoned properly, you would be able to attain such an understanding.
    "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/

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Rant on ENTPs
    By Blackwater in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: 09-30-2012, 10:20 AM
  2. [ENTJ] Rant on ENTJs
    By Maverick in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 12-29-2010, 02:50 PM
  3. [MBTItm] short rant on NFs
    By sakuraba in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 227
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 10:38 PM
  4. A short rant on chivalry
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 09:37 PM
  5. [INTJ] Rant on INTJs
    By Usehername in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 04:28 PM

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