[INTP] Don't ask an INTP.

[nim]

what is evil...?

 

[Oom]

what is evil...?

You are evil. I can't believe you would ask such a question!

 

[Kasper]

Question: What about all of this would be attractive to an ENFJ?
Wait.. shit.. i'm interested. Crap

Poor thang there is no cure.

 

[Unkindloving]

Poor thang there is no cure.

Re-really? Sorry guys. Getting my feelings all over the place. I'll clean it up, i promise.

 

[BlueGray]

Well the dictionary definition is Evil | Definition of Evil at Dictionary.com:

But, seeing as that is useless and rather meaningless. Evil is a term that is specific to me as an individual that I use to classify any thing that I disagree with strongly enough, has caused me sufficient pain, or I simply wish to attach a negative connotation to.

 

[Kasper]

You can't call another INTP evil though, I think any INTP would lack the follow through to be able to be called evil, at best ya'll can be ebil.

Re-really? Sorry guys. Getting my feelings all over the place. I'll clean it up, i promise.

Emoting all over the place may make them uncomfortable, but only if they notice, so you should be in the clear

 

[Blackmail!]

Most of all, we probably don't care.

So do I.

[/EndDialog]

 

[nim]

i'm not evil. i'm just misunderstood.

so, basically, evil is a personal, perhaps relative term, in thine own opinion?

 

[fill]

what is evil...?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60-qRvmzKA"]evil[/YOUTUBE]

 

[nim]

well, now i know where it is, and from whence it came, as well, thanks:

YouTube - A History of Evil

 

[entropie]

Why cant I bend air ?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W1dhqc-JBs"].[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Edgar]

We probably won't reply.

We'll probably think about a reply, but fail to post it.

We might write an unsuitable reply, and choose not to post it.

If we do reply, we'll probably skirt around the issue or spend a month asking about the specifics before any progress gets done.

If we do talk about the specifics, chances are, we'll get distracted and draw mismatched conclusions on circumstantial things and get mentally locked in place.

If we do get mindlocked, it'll be 100 years too soon for you to understand our own brilliance, much less our world view.

If we don't get mindlocked, and we do reply, it's probably just bullshit anyway so that you'll get off our backs.

So do us all a favor, and don't ask an INTP.

Most of all, we probably don't care.



Now, any questions?

what are you wearing?

 

[slowriot]

what are you wearing?

Thats a very wary question.

In what way do you mean?

 

[nim]

Why cant I bend air ?

because you care about the environment.

you're concerned that all of those candles would only aid global warming, your greatest enemy.

 

[Provoker]

We probably won't reply.

We'll probably think about a reply, but fail to post it.

We might write an unsuitable reply, and choose not to post it.

If we do reply, we'll probably skirt around the issue or spend a month asking about the specifics before any progress gets done.

If we do talk about the specifics, chances are, we'll get distracted and draw mismatched conclusions on circumstantial things and get mentally locked in place.

If we do get mindlocked, it'll be 100 years too soon for you to understand our own brilliance, much less our world view.

If we don't get mindlocked, and we do reply, it's probably just bullshit anyway so that you'll get off our backs.

So do us all a favor, and don't ask an INTP.

Most of all, we probably don't care.



Now, any questions?

This is indeed something I can relate to. The phenomenon in question is what I refer to as being stuck in chess, which is an idea I intuited after reading Anthony Downs' Stuck in Traffic. The idea behind being stuck in chess is that one's mobility or propensity to act is paralyzed by thinking through never ending possibilities. The sense in which some chess players (and thinkers, more generally) are predisposed to this became evident after I noticed a cross case pattern among chess players. For example, when I lose a game it is almost always due to time trouble. At the Pan American games that I played in, where my university sent a team, I noticed that another fellow on the team (who I played and beat in the qualifier) is doing a PhD in mathematics and he too runs into time trouble. Even at higher levels, I have noticed that there are people who may see thirty moves deep at a point, and have a rich understanding of strategy, can watch their clocks wind down as they contemplate tactics. However, just recently I proved to myself, in a mathematical sense, that taking too much time to make "good moves" is quite paradoxical. The reasoning is as follows. Before, I would take a lot of time between moves 9 to 25. The reason is that most of my games achieve a winning position if anything by about move 25. Then the idea is that by allocating time to the end of the opening and the middle game, I can establish an advantage, and then will not need as much time in the end game. This reasoning is flawed. Given the assumption that an opponent is of equal or greater chess ability, then this proposition can never be fulfilled. The reason is that although one might think that they are giving themselves lots of time in the earlier moves of the game, and that this should give them an advantage, one must take into account that your opponent is able to think on your time. As such, you cannot possibly be better off than your opponent through time allocation alone, since your opponent is able to get a free ride thinking on your time plus his own. This became evident when I started to play and have been able to beat 2300s in 1 minute speed chess. Here you simply cannot hesitate on a move. You must play forward. Therefore, when contemplation is a non-option (or a losing option) I found myself playing with mere intuition, and noticed that if a situation arose where my opponent thought for even 5 seconds, that I was able to think on his time and be even faster when it was my turn again. With speed chess this is obvious. Yet, with longer chess there is still a tendency for one to get stuck in contemplation mode. Now, if the goal is to compose elegant chess games this is certainly a viable method. However, if the goal is to win this is impractical.

Therefore, being stuck in chess can prevent one from being a practical chess player. Another idea is that I think it is possible to be even too abstract for chess. The trouble is that the senses do not think and logic does not see. If stuck in a world of abstract contemplation of intricate possibilities and patterns, one can lose sense of the very concrete items in front of one. For example, in one of my games at the Pan Ams after playing a beautiful game up until move 21, I got stuck in highly sophisticated tactical operations and dropped my queen. I still haven't forgiven myself for that. But in order to think one requires content to think about, and if one is so detached from the physical world one might miss a key object that requires just a moment's notice to consider.

Summarily, though I have consistently tested as INTJ, I am an enneagram 5 and in certain ways identify strongly with INTPs. Fortunately, within the set of chess players at the chess club there is a subset of INTPs. These INTPs tend to value proper thinking, which is logically valid thinking. The group over all is dominated by NTs. I have observed that those with a slightly higher preference for intuition tend to make better chess players, since they are less likely to get stuck in chess and then scramble for decision after a considerable amount of time has passed. Those with a preference for thinking tend to run into time trouble. With more possible chess games than particles in the universe, it is easy for a thinker to get stuck contemplating possibilities with no sense of feel for why one might be preferred to another. Perhaps one might argue that the origin of movement consists in feeling; the origin of inaction consists in thinking. If this is true, then it should come as no surprise that many of the great rationalists did not move far from home.

 

[Aimee]

We probably won't reply.

We'll probably think about a reply, but fail to post it.

We might write an unsuitable reply, and choose not to post it.

If we do reply, we'll probably skirt around the issue or spend a month asking about the specifics before any progress gets done.

If we do talk about the specifics, chances are, we'll get distracted and draw mismatched conclusions on circumstantial things and get mentally locked in place.

If we do get mindlocked, it'll be 100 years too soon for you to understand our own brilliance, much less our world view.

If we don't get mindlocked, and we do reply, it's probably just bullshit anyway so that you'll get off our backs.

So do us all a favor, and don't ask an INTP.

Most of all, we probably don't care.



Now, any questions?

Hah-hah! That is hilarious! You rascal. Me likes.

 

[tcda]

Now, any questions?

I wrote some but won't post them.

 

[Sharkasm]

I wrote some but won't post them.

Correct answer. 10 zillion points awarded.

 

[tcda]

Correct answer. 10 zillion points awarded.

/Declares self winner of Pness contest.
/Ends thread.

 

[Blank]

Nobody asked to see your penis.

FAIL.