[INTP] INTP 2 INTP (possibly of use to others)

[Xander]

Do you mean any particular reason why I PMed someone, or any particular reason why I don't ask questions?

The latter. Not particularly clear, sorry.

I guess it also depends on what people mean by intrusive questions. I do occasionally ask questions, like 'are you a visual thinker'. But generally it's only people I know reasonably well and in context - and I say what it's like for me too. For me, intrusive questions are about personal details and personal decisions, and it's how it's asked too. So, I dunno.

I just thought it strange. Often I find the impertinent question to be the most useful but there again I am often trying to match up new information to fit in with pre-existing patterns and hence need a particular nugget of information for the comparison. I just wondered how, if no probing questions are asked, how you negotiate that feeling that you're missing something.

 

[bluebell]

The latter. Not particularly clear, sorry.

I just thought it strange. Often I find the impertinent question to be the most useful but there again I am often trying to match up new information to fit in with pre-existing patterns and hence need a particular nugget of information for the comparison. I just wondered how, if no probing questions are asked, how you negotiate that feeling that you're missing something.

I operate differently IRL and online. IRL, I watch and observe, even while I'm interacting with somone. I have theories about what makes someone tick, but I don't find asking direct questions at all helpful. People are often not able to articulate why they do what they do, and as well as that, it's not really socially acceptable to do it, so I don't. The exception is with my partner, but we know each other very well, and it's comfortable to do it.

Online, I may do it a bit, but generally only with a few other INTPs who I know quite well. And it's a mutual discussion, it's never really out of the blue.

 

[alcea rosea]

I'm just jumping in without any clue about the conversation but the INTP 2 INTP reminded me of a confrontation of two INTP's I witnessed at work for quite while ago. The other INTP was a male of his fifties and the other one a male in his forties. (I don't know if the age is relevant here but anyways..)

I'll have to say that the confrontation was terrible to watch. It seems that nobody could crush the other person as bad as the same personality type can. Because if the other person is a bit more skilled in your own logic and plays with your mind even if you think you can play with the mind of other people.....that means only someting bad. (And in this case, the older INTP is a bit messed up person whose biggest enjoyment seems to be bringing misery to everybody just for the fun of it .)

So in this case, the older, more experienced guy crushed the younger INTP totally with the logic of the younger INTP. I witnessed the younger INTP (who was very arrogant in his ways but not mean in any way) almost in tears. It was very strange to see that because normally he was very cool, very distant and very controlled. I tried to make him feel better by saying it's the normal behavior of the older INTP and after some conversation the younger INTP seemed to cheer up a bit.

But thats INTP 2 INTP to you. I wouldn't recommend and I wouldn't want to try it out. I'm not saying here that it's normal behavior of INTP I'm just telling about something I saw happening.

 

[Xander]

Unlike many others, INTPs seem resilient to getting caught up in how others view a situation. When other people get subsumed into another's perception of something and follow that perception as if it were their own, the INTP is still looking at it with their own eyes (as it were). I kinda figure that this is the reason behind the childlike view of certain things and also the skill at detached analysis. However I also see problems in this.

Humans are social beings and social interaction would appear to rely in part on a common conception of things. If we resist accepting other's views of things or make inadequate efforts to see other's points of view (and their reasoning and construction behind such views) then we will be ostracised to a some extent. Whilst this may not seem so bad, it is well documented that it is very difficult to change a structure, an organisation from the outside. Hence if we are to affect the real world, alleviate ourselves of the irritation and how poorly conceived so many things are and also to remain able to assist others when they come to us for advice/ analysis (which to many an INTP is like nectar!!) then we must (to some extent) allow ourselves to see as we are expected to see, foreign though this may be.

 

[Xander]

I'm just jumping in without any clue about the conversation but the INTP 2 INTP reminded me of a confrontation of two INTP's I witnessed at work for quite while ago. The other INTP was a male of his fifties and the other one a male in his forties. (I don't know if the age is relevant here but anyways..)

I'll have to say that the confrontation was terrible to watch. It seems that nobody could crush the other person as bad as the same personality type can. Because if the other person is a bit more skilled in your own logic and plays with your mind even if you think you can play with the mind of other people.....that means only someting bad. (And in this case, the older INTP is a bit messed up person whose biggest enjoyment seems to be bringing misery to everybody just for the fun of it .)

So in this case, the older, more experienced guy crushed the younger INTP totally with the logic of the younger INTP. I witnessed the younger INTP (who was very arrogant in his ways but not mean in any way) almost in tears. It was very strange to see that because normally he was very cool, very distant and very controlled. I tried to make him feel better by saying it's the normal behavior of the older INTP and after some conversation the younger INTP seemed to cheer up a bit.

But thats INTP 2 INTP to you. I wouldn't recommend and I wouldn't want to try it out. I'm not saying here that it's normal behavior of INTP I'm just telling about something I saw happening.

That brings to mind another little gem.... (Thanks Alcea Rosea)

Don't get over obsessed with truth. Winning isn't everything and is often the surest way of losing overall.

Negotiation, once learned, produces better results consistently than either belligerence or acquiescence.

 

[Xander]

Rules and parameters.

Rules are so often rejected out of principle, who wants their restraints right?

A rule is no more constricting than a guideline except in the mind of the sheep. Even a rule is designed so that it only controls what it must. If you can extract the parameters from the rule then not only will you see that most rules are perfectly acceptable (or certainly more so than they originally appeared) but also you'll be better able to include their actual requirements instead of the commonly accepted interpretation including all the extra implied and not stated controls.

 

[cafe]

As far as I see it if you've always hated the taste of apples then you're liable to avoid apples. If someone tells you that there's this apple that tastes like no other then yes you may be tempted to try it but until you do it's tempting to simply avoid apples as every single one you've tried doesn't agree with you. Sure that's a shame and apple lovers will try to dissuade you but that's your experience of things. I'm not saying that one approach is more valid than any other, only that they are valid.

Except INTJMom is saying something more like "I don't like apples because apples are red." It's true, some apples are red. Lots of apples are not red, though, and lots of other foods are red.

I'm not asking that she stop thinking there are red apples out there or that she should start liking red. There are red apples and our likes and dislikes are our own and free to be completely subjective.

I'm just saying that not all apples are red. There are Golden Delicious, there are Granny Smith, etc. Some cherries are red and so are some tomatoes. See the difference?

 

[Xander]

Except INTJMom is saying something more like "I don't like apples because apples are red." It's true, some apples are red. Lots of apples are not red, though, and lots of other foods are red.

I'm not asking that she stop thinking there are red apples out there or that she should start liking red. There are red apples and our likes and dislikes are our own and free to be completely subjective.

I'm just saying that not all apples are red. There are Golden Delicious, there are Granny Smith, etc. Some cherries are red and so are some tomatoes. See the difference?

The point she made was correct. INTPs can sometimes delve too far and offend people. We get obsessed with the matter at hand and forget all about "fripperies" like respecting others.

The only thing about INTJMoms original post which is specific to her is the vehemence and by all accounts that's been hard earned.


If I guess right you're responding to head off some stereotype being developed or enforced. Well, whilst that is a noble cause, could it not be said that some advice should be to outline what parts of the stereotype are well earned and what are myth? Also without stereotypes there is no naming, no defining. That sounds like hell!!! I LOVE defining.

Anyhoo, I agree with the both of you to one extent or another (and in one context or another) but neither is a superior position to the other really. Either you evaluate everything on the spot or you try to predetermine everything, each has it's flaws. Personally I like to mix it up a bit.

Edit :-
Responding specifically within the analogy.
If you've only ever seen red apples and you don't like red apples then you are within your rights to declare that you don't like apples. The fact that somewhere there is a green apple is irrelevant until you happen upon it or choose to accept the rumours of it's existence from another who likes red apples anyway and could well be just trying to get you to shut up about apples.

The thing is that yes you should be open to things which contradict and challenge your view of things (as noted in INTJMom's signature) but also it's a whole lot more expedient and realistic to expect people to change after proof is shown. Before hand it just takes ages and keeps hitting the "but I don't want to" wall. Think of it like teaching a child that broccoli doesn't bring instant death upon ingestion. Positive experience works a whole lot better than simply repeating "they're fine".

 

[Priam]

Rules are so often rejected out of principle, who wants their restraints right?

A rule is no more constricting than a guideline except in the mind of the sheep. Even a rule is designed so that it only controls what it must. If you can extract the parameters from the rule then not only will you see that most rules are perfectly acceptable (or certainly more so than they originally appeared) but also you'll be better able to include their actual requirements instead of the commonly accepted interpretation including all the extra implied and not stated controls.

Or, to use Terry Pratchett, rules exist to make you think before you break them.

... and never forget Rule 1.

 

[Seanan]

Do you find that it's because he's looking for the solid foundation points for your thinking and decisions where as you only really have general conceptions and theories?

I ask because my ISTJ friend has tried to pin down my thinking on more than one occasion only to get frustrated that the "certainty" which he pinned down not five seconds ago has somehow come loose and now my answer seems to be the opposite of what it once was.

You don't ask blunt, reasonless questions? You don't play games with people where you try and draw out the answer you think they'll give so you can lay the prepared counter point on them?

Well that sounds like no fun. No fun at all!!

No, he's just being nosey. For instance: If I say I think bisexuality is natural and heterosexulaity is culturally induced he will question me trying to find out if I've had any bi experiences. I wouldn't mind a discussion on the subject but when the subject becomes "me"... forget it.

Nah, asking directly can be lots of fun. The look! and taking one off-gaurd is more likely to produced an honest answer... as well as a fat lip.

 

[Seanan]

.
The thing is that yes you should be open to things which contradict and challenge your view of things (as noted in INTJMom's signature) but also it's a whole lot more expedient and realistic to expect people to change after proof is shown. Before hand it just takes ages and keeps hitting the "but I don't want to" wall. Think of it like teaching a child that broccoli doesn't bring instant death upon ingestion. Positive experience works a whole lot better than simply repeating "they're fine".

You are extremely lucky if you've known many people who accept rational "proof." That hasn't been my experience. That is, perhaps, why I just ask questions and seldom offer an opinion irl. In fact, back when I did state opinions, I found most people quite offended. No, rationality doesn't fly usually. Were it not for questions, there wouldn't be much left as far as communication goes. Now I'm seeing that even questions can be offensive. *sigh*.. so many kinds, so little understanding. Actually, I don't think there's a whole lot an INTP can do right other than change who they are? but, is that "right?" No, can't go there either... I'll just do what I do best... stay home and mind my own business.

 

[Xander]

No, he's just being nosey. For instance: If I say I think bisexuality is natural and heterosexulaity is culturally induced he will question me trying to find out if I've had any bi experiences. I wouldn't mind a discussion on the subject but when the subject becomes "me"... forget it.

Nah, asking directly can be lots of fun. The look! and taking one off-gaurd is more likely to produced an honest answer... as well as a fat lip.

I think the only way they'll ever get me to be comfortable being an exhibit in such a fashion is by displaying my corpse!

I too hate it when the whole thing becomes about me... oddly enough though I don't like being ignored either. According to the whole MBTI INTP description that's common... Must be synonymous with 'picky swine'

You are extremely lucky if you've known many people who accept rational "proof." That hasn't been my experience. That is, perhaps, why I just ask questions and seldom offer an opinion irl. In fact, back when I did state opinions, I found most people quite offended. No, rationality doesn't fly usually. Were it not for questions, there wouldn't be much left as far as communication goes. Now I'm seeing that even questions can be offensive. *sigh*.. so many kinds, so little understanding. Actually, I don't think there's a whole lot an INTP can do right other than change who they are? but, is that "right?" No, can't go there either... I'll just do what I do best... stay home and mind my own business.

Note, success or failure doesn't always moderate whether I reattempt or not.

Oh and people often don't accept rational thinking when you confront them, Ts even more so than Fs IME! You have to fill in those gaps which the intuitive mind so often puts in.

You should see the reaction half of my amusing comments get. I'm amused but everyone else is completely lost. Usually cause I've just taken about 43 hops in my thinking and haven't told them about even one of them


Not that I ever explain the joke though. It loses all humour if you have to explain it... besides half of the reason I'm usually laughing is their expressions of complete confusion

 

[Xander]

I'm not sure what reminded me of this recently but here's a one liner that always strikes a chord...

It was advice not given as advice but merely a comment on the INTP way of life by an ENFP...

"I'd rather live life than just observe it"

 

[mippus]

tough message, because a little too true