[NT] INTP Rebellion

[SolitaryWalker]

So what is the flaw of Ne and what notions does it cater to?

The Ne often obeys Ti in the task of carrying out an inner goal. With the ENTP, it is the other way around. Thinking is means to the end of better interacting with the external environment. With the INTP,all interactions with the external environment is means to the end of better Thinking.

 

[Totenkindly]

The Ne often obeys Ti in the task of carrying out an inner goal. With the ENTP, it is the other way around. Thinking is means to the end of better interacting with the external environment. With the INTP,all interactions with the external environment is means to the end of better Thinking.

But what's so negative about that?
(Come on, you can do better -- don't be such a pollyana!)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

But what's so negative about that?
(Come on, you can do better -- don't be such a pollyana!)

I did not say its negative.

The true negative thing is about the ISTPs Ni being so docile as to accept all orders of Ti indiscriminately.

Same will happen to severely neurotic INTPs, as we have here the Hegelian master slave dialect. If your secondary function isnt strong to hold its own, it will do the bidding of the function presiding over it.

 

[ptgatsby]

But what's so negative about that?
(Come on, you can do better -- don't be such a pollyana!)

Nonesense. INTP is the ideal for which to strive for.

The problem lies in bias. The attempt to find order in observed data, via thinking and intuition, causes the connections made to be heavily biased due to the subjective nature of the data. Logical coherency is the only framework that they can work from, complete with its limitations.

 

[Roger Mexico]

I guess I just have a different orientation to it. I can definitely see a lot of problems in society, it's just that I approach everything from the perspective of "given what choices I have, what is best for me?" It isn't that I think society is right or fair, but that participating in it is best/easiest for me. Basically, even though I know that I'm probably contributing to something that isn't very good in principle, I ultimately seem to decide in favor of what's best for me (especially when I feel pressured), rather than what's best in general..

Like I said, that's probably a J thing. This is a drastic oversimplification based on dilettante knowledge, but I think J's are driven to stick things in categories, (like good/bad, self/society) whereas NP's are trying to integrate all the data into a coherent whole. To me, what you see as "problems in society" look like evidence of inherent flaws in the social structure. And "what do I choose given the options" is a J thing, too. What I see there is a dichotomy begging to be shown to be false. "Not very good in principle" is the source of the "problems in society." Admittedly, this is my Achilles heel in a lot of respects, but if I contribute to the system as it is, I'm responsible for the problems to some degree. That weighs heavy on me, but that's just me.

I justify it with the Social Contract. You're giving up a part of your time/energy to society's machine in exchange for the advantages of participating in society. If people didn't have to put in a certain amount of work to survive/get money, society wouldn't work because no one would have any inclination to do anything but play. Does that make sense?..

Well, participation in society isn't really voluntary anymore, which is the crux of the problem. The alternative to accepting the social contract isn't self-sufficiency, (nowhere left to go, basically) so it's either work for "society" or go to prison. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't help much.

Pardon the recitation of Marxist cant, but the distinction between work and play is a byproduct of a society that hasn't figured out how to optimally divide labor. People, by nature, are creative machines. Wherever we are, we can't help but try to change things around to suit us better. In a primitive state of existence, you spend all your time and energy hunting or farming or whatever to feed yourself, but the great project of modern civilization supposedly aims to free up time and energy for "higher" pursuits by making basic production more efficient. The difference between a hobby (say, acting or sculpting or restoring old cars) and "work" isn't its objective material contribution to society; it's whether or not society's mechanism for allocating resources acts in such a way as to subsidize that activity. Some people do just get to "play" and make a living off of it--professional athletes being the most obvious example. The rest of us who aren't so lucky are forced to devote our time and energy (most of it if you consider that 8 hours is half of your waking hours if you sleep 8 hours a night) to productive/creative activities that we wouldn't choose to engage in otherwise in order to subsidize those few. I just don't like where I fit into that scheme.

Pardon the question, but why are you working in dead-end jobs like that? You should be trying to come up with something that can make money. Write a computer program, invent something, write a book, etc. Why can't you at least get some kind of "white collar" job that offers more opportunities, stability, and probably even pays more than the "service" jobs you've been describing? Those are mostly for uneducated people with no potential.

There's the J "should" again. I suppose I "could" get a white-collar job, but that doesn't solve the problem of having to spend most of my time and energy on something I don't care about. The size of the paycheck isn't the issue. Writing advertisements might be more lucrative than service work, but it would be just as boring and unfulfilling. Education doesn't help unless you're educated in a field that corresponds to an in-demand commodity. I did what everyone told me to do--study something I find interesting--but now I'm staring down the fact that my interests are irrelevant. No one would read my book. People don't want to hear what I have to say; they want to wear $200 pairs of pants and watch Ben Affleck movies. It's not a reflection of my intelligence or "potential," it's a question of being among the 1% of people who think like I do and want the things I want in a sea of SF fucktards who couldn't appreciate what I have to offer even if they tried.

 

[Athenian200]

Like I said, that's probably a J thing. This is a drastic oversimplification based on dilettante knowledge, but I think J's are driven to stick things in categories, (like good/bad, self/society) whereas NP's are trying to integrate all the data into a coherent whole. To me, what you see as "problems in society" look like evidence of inherent flaws in the social structure. And "what do I choose given the options" is a J thing, too. What I see there is a dichotomy begging to be shown to be false. "Not very good in principle" is the source of the "problems in society." Admittedly, this is my Achilles heel in a lot of respects, but if I contribute to the system as it is, I'm responsible for the problems to some degree. That weighs heavy on me, but that's just me.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but it seems a bit idealistic and impractical, honestly. (And ironically enough, I'm the NF?)

Well, participation in society isn't really voluntary anymore, which is the crux of the problem. The alternative to accepting the social contract isn't self-sufficiency, (nowhere left to go, basically) so it's either work for "society" or go to prison. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't help much.

Well... if you did have a choice between living alone in a jungle and having to fight dangerous animals for food, or work in society, would you choose the former?

Pardon the recitation of Marxist cant, but the distinction between work and play is a byproduct of a society that hasn't figured out how to optimally divide labor. People, by nature, are creative machines. Wherever we are, we can't help but try to change things around to suit us better. In a primitive state of existence, you spend all your time and energy hunting or farming or whatever to feed yourself, but the great project of modern civilization supposedly aims to free up time and energy for "higher" pursuits by making basic production more efficient. The difference between a hobby (say, acting or sculpting or restoring old cars) and "work" isn't its objective material contribution to society; it's whether or not society's mechanism for allocating resources acts in such a way as to subsidize that activity. Some people do just get to "play" and make a living off of it--professional athletes being the most obvious example. The rest of us who aren't so lucky are forced to devote our time and energy (most of it if you consider that 8 hours is half of your waking hours if you sleep 8 hours a night) to productive/creative activities that we wouldn't choose to engage in otherwise in order to subsidize those few. I just don't like where I fit into that scheme.

NP's are creative machines... SJ's aren't, and fear change even when it's beneficial. NJ's and SP's are somewhere in between. I would work towards society working in a more efficient way, dividing labor to suit people better while still working to maintain its own existence as well as possible. I wouldn't want it to fall apart completely, after all.

There's the J "should" again. I suppose I "could" get a white-collar job, but that doesn't solve the problem of having to spend most of my time and energy on something I don't care about. The size of the paycheck isn't the issue. Writing advertisements might be more lucrative than service work, but it would be just as boring and unfulfilling. Education doesn't help unless you're educated in a field that corresponds to an in-demand commodity. I did what everyone told me to do--study something I find interesting--but now I'm staring down the fact that my interests are irrelevant. No one would read my book. People don't want to hear what I have to say; they want to wear $200 pairs of pants and watch Ben Affleck movies. It's not a reflection of my intelligence or "potential," it's a question of being among the 1% of people who think like I do and want the things I want in a sea of SF fucktards who couldn't appreciate what I have to offer even if they tried.

True enough. But the point is, if you did work that paid more and had more opportunities for advancement, you would be able to make more money, and thus have more freedom. You might even make enough that you could live off the interest from your investments/accounts, and not have to work anymore.
You would be able to get out of "the system" faster that way, and at the very least retire earlier than you could have otherwise. By remaining in a service job, you never go up, you serve the system faithfully, and you go through the exact motions you've predicted. I choose to exploit the system to get what I want/need out of it. In my opinion, you have a choice between exploiting the system, and letting the system exploit you.

The other thing is, it seems like you're worried about a choice you don't have. Complaining about what already exists, what's already happened. To me, it's a bit like worrying over spilled milk. Talking about what should have been, could have been ideally if people had thought of it, rather than what should/can be done now. It's like you're constantly thinking of either how things should have been done, or how people should do them, rather than whether you can actually do anything about it. Even more, you don't even do anything to try and change it, you just sit and complain, which doesn't make sense to me.

 

[miss fortune]

as long as you don't constantly screw yourself over in an attempt to get even with the man and everyone else you're fine! I must agree that ISTPs have it the worst! (yes- I'm agreeing with something on the first page)

(oh how I hate my personality sometimes!)

 

[Roger Mexico]

I think I understand where you're coming from, but it seems a bit idealistic and impractical, honestly. (And ironically enough, I'm the NF?) .

I didn't say it wasn't. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I tried to explain. I have a lot of time on my hands lately.

Well... if you did have a choice between living alone in a jungle and having to fight dangerous animals for food, or work in society, would you choose the former?

Honestly, some days I'd be sorely tempted. More risk, true, but my decisions would be my own and I'd be accountable only to myself. It cuts the Bill Lumbergs out of the equation.

NP's are creative machines... SJ's aren't, and fear change even when it's beneficial. NJ's and SP's are somewhere in between..

Well, the SJ's apply their talents to keeping things running smoothly. Just because they aren't "creative types" in the narrow artistic or intellectual sense doesn't mean they don't seek out opportunities to apply themselves and influence the world around them (think people who join volunteer fire departments or the Red Cross). How many of them are working their way up the ladder as security guards for cosmetics companies and jewelry stores so someday they'll have enough money to travel around and help disaster victims (or whatever)?

I would work towards society working in a more efficient way, dividing labor to suit people better while still working to maintain its own existence as well as possible. I wouldn't want it to fall apart completely, after all.

Uh, read a history book. Spend too much time trying to "work towards society working in a more efficient way" and you get wiretapped, hauled in front of congressional committees and blacklisted. If you're lucky (and by "lucky" I mean "white.") The people who benefit from the status quo know how to keep would-be reformers out of positions where they can do any real damage.

What if things had to "get worse before they get better"? Surely an NJ understands "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Again, it's just idle speculation driven by an unusually acute sense of alienation, but I do have my days...

True enough. But the point is, if you did work that paid more and had more opportunities for advancement, you would be able to make more money, and thus have more freedom. You might even make enough that you could live off the interest from your investments/accounts, and not have to work anymore.
You would be able to get out of "the system" faster that way, and at the very least retire earlier than you could have otherwise. By remaining in a service job, you never go up, you serve the system faithfully, and you go through the exact motions you've predicted. I choose to exploit the system to get what I want/need out of it. In my opinion, you have a choice between exploiting the system, and letting the system exploit you..

Whose talking about remaining in a service job? At the moment I'm stalling and waffling on the question of law school vs. getting a PhD, either of which would of course be contingent on my finding a workable combination of distractions and anesthetics to hold back the self-destructive/ anti-social urges produced by the realization that in any case I'll be spending half my waking life pretending to be someone I'm not.

It's not that I can't climb the ladder, it's that I think the equation "money = freedom" is bullshit. Money is ersatz freedom to replace what you surrender to get it.

It's called selling out for a reason. They get what they pay for.

The other thing is, it seems like you're worried about a choice you don't have. Complaining about what already exists, what's already happened. ...Talking about what should have been, could have been ideally if people had thought of it, rather than what should/can be done now. It's like you're constantly thinking of either how things should have been done, or how people should do them, rather than whether you can actually do anything about it. Even more, you don't even do anything to try and change it, you just sit and complain, which doesn't make sense to me.

Excellent synopsis of how Ti/Ne works. Congratulations. I'll forgive the condescension, since you're a J and you can't really help it.

But with that attitude, you could probably get a cabinet post in the Bush administration.

E.g. the whole F---ing mess in Iraq is the result of nobody taking the time to consider the interplay of factors they don't directly control. And it's going to keep happening as long as people like me are marginalized as "idealistic and impractical" for raising these kind of objections.

And for the record, prior to the onset of my most recent major depressive episode (now entering year 3, but I'm bouncing back) I was heavily involved in political activism. I was one of the people protesting the war before it started. If the 70% of the American populace that now realizes the invasion was a colossally stupid idea had been paying attention to the kind of big-picture thinking I'm talking about, we might have had a chance of preventing the whole debacle in the first place.

But the national conversation was more like:

-- "W-w-w-well, what if Saddam's got a nuke and he's going to give it to Osama bin Laden? Shouldn't we do something before it's too late?"

--"You know the chances of that actually happening are laughably small."

--"B-b-b-but we don't know for sure. What if it was true and we didn't do something?"

--"Uh, what if we get involved in a war for no reason and get bogged down in a conflict that does nothing to make us safer?"

--"Well, now you're just wildly speculating. Let's get back to the issue at hand."

--"OK, even a cursory knowledge of Middle Eastern politics should tell you that Saddam and bin Laden have nothing to gain from helping each other..."

--"Dude, this isn't some complicated philosophical issue. This is life or death, man!"

--"your ignorance amazes me."

--"Maybe, but it's not like it affects me. I'm not in the Army."

--"You pay taxes, right?"

--"Yeah, but I pay taxes either way. I just don't want to get nuked. It's that simple."

--"Actually, I think you're simple."

--"Shut up, hippie. Go back to your books, I have to work for a living."

At this point I basically started drinking myself numb. Then I started drinking more when everbody was like "Oh, sh-t. What happened? Totally didn't see that coming. Who could have?"

 

[Athenian200]

I didn't say it wasn't. You said you didn't understand the logic, so I tried to explain. I have a lot of time on my hands lately.

Okay. Thanks for explaining, I thought it was interesting.

Honestly, some days I'd be sorely tempted. More risk, true, but my decisions would be my own and I'd be accountable only to myself. It cuts the Bill Lumbergs out of the equation.

Well, that makes it seem much more consistent with itself... it's clear that you feel very strongly about this. I guess I just enjoy security enough that I'll sacrifice a lot of freedom before it becomes so uncomfortable that it would be more comfortable to separate and rebel instead of conform to it. I feel slightly guilty about this, like it's probably wrong, but it's like I have a vice towards needing order and security more than I need to be true to myself. That could be why I tested as Lawful Neutral.

Well, the SJ's apply their talents to keeping things running smoothly. Just because they aren't "creative types" in the narrow artistic or intellectual sense doesn't mean they don't seek out opportunities to apply themselves and influence the world around them (think people who join volunteer fire departments or the Red Cross). How many of them are working their way up the ladder as security guards for cosmetics companies and jewelry stores so someday they'll have enough money to travel around and help disaster victims (or whatever)?

I didn't think of it that way. I tended to divide creative people from people who don't tend to come up with many new ideas. I think you were referring to natural talents more than creativity. So... what you're saying is, people should work towards contributing things based on their natural talents rather than contributing things that don't motivate them? That seems sound enough to me.

Uh, read a history book. Spend too much time trying to "work towards society working in a more efficient way" and you get wiretapped, hauled in front of congressional committees and blacklisted. If you're lucky (and by "lucky" I mean "white.") The people who benefit from the status quo know how to keep would-be reformers out of positions where they can do any real damage.

Even if I showed them that it was in their best interest? What sort of person refuses to do something that's in their best interest after it's been explained to them why it is so? I can't imagine anyone doing so openly.

What if things had to "get worse before they get better"? Surely an NJ understands "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Again, it's just idle speculation driven by an unusually acute sense of alienation, but I do have my days...

Well... in that case, if it were my choice, I would make things worse so that they could get better over time.

Whose talking about remaining in a service job? At the moment I'm stalling and waffling on the question of law school vs. getting a PhD, either of which would of course be contingent on my finding a workable combination of distractions and anesthetics to hold back the self-destructive/ anti-social urges produced by the realization that in any case I'll be spending half my waking life pretending to be someone I'm not.

Those are good choices. It's not really fair that you could do more in the things that you want to do, but are instead pressured to do something else in order to get ahead, but getting ahead has to be your focus.

It's not that I can't climb the ladder, it's that I think the equation "money = freedom" is bullshit. Money is ersatz freedom to replace what you surrender to get it.

It's called selling out for a reason. They get what they pay for.

Surrender what? I don't understand. What else could I have done more productively with the spare time I used to work if I didn't have any money with which to do it?

Excellent synopsis of how Ti/Ne works. Congratulations. I'll forgive the condescension, since you're a J and you can't really help it.

But with that attitude, you could probably get a cabinet post in the Bush administration.

I apologize if it seemed condescending... it just seemed that way to me. Maybe I just saw it one way, saw one thing in it, when there was more to it... that's a habit of mine.

E.g. the whole F---ing mess in Iraq is the result of nobody taking the time to consider the interplay of factors they don't directly control. And it's going to keep happening as long as people like me are marginalized as "idealistic and impractical" for raising these kind of objections.

See, I didn't even look at in that context. I was thinking about it in terms of you getting to do what you wanted to in life, not the nature of society, whether it was a sound structure, what's best for everyone. I didn't even realize that was related to your decisions. I guess my question is, why do you seem more concerned that other people do what's best for themselves as a whole, rather than just not caring about them or their society, and doing what's best for you and the people that matter to you? I mean, they're not going to change it because they're too lazy and set in their ways, and it's got so many cracks that eventually the whole thing is going to collapse. That's why I'm not bothering to fix it, or the way people think about things, because I don't think it's worth fixing, and I don't think people are intelligent, thoughtful, or forward-thinking enough to be convinced to do what needs to be done to fix it. Finally, even if I could, there's nothing in it for me. In fact, why not put yourself in a position to capitalize on the collapse when it happens?

By the way, I didn't think there was much point in going to war over there either... I thought the cost of resources and the diplomatic relations issues with other countries would create more problems than it would solve. Although I think now that we are over there, it would create too much of a mess to just abandon it. Granted, we never should have gotten involved, but can we really just leave now, and leave a power vacuum that would likely attract a dictator worse and more hostile to our interests than the one we deposed? Especially since the rest of the world would blame us for leaving it unprotected after we created the bad situation in the first place. It would hurt our reputation even more than it already has been by going there in the first place. Now we have a financial and military burden that will probably eat up all our prosperity, and no good way to get out of it. Honestly, I'd like to just abandon it and let whoever takes over take over just get the military/economic "monkey off our backs," but I'm worried that other nations would react negatively to that, which might impact our trade and international influence. So I don't know if it's better to just leave now and cut our losses, or stay until the job's done to save face. I'd actually like to hear your opinion on this issue.