the title of this thread should be "Who are more "robotic": INTJs or INTPs? INTP is the correct answer, but disagree with me so I can argue with you and question your intelligence!"
Another person who clearly doesn't get it.
Interesting. It came off trolly to me, honestly. Apologies. What is the point, though? Like... my NFPness doesn't really understand. Maybe it's a T debate / truth thing. Like it's interesting to debate just because it's another corner of the universe to define?
No, not trolly at all, really.
It's pretty much like you said: another area to explore/define.
I mean, I've seen this issue discussed, indirectly, plenty of times before, and I've had plenty of discussions whereby people have agreed with me that the caricature of INTJs as "robotic" is extremely far from the truth, so, after making a joke to an INTP in another thread this morning about her response being extremely robotic, I figured, "You know, I've never seen a thread or poll about which type people believe to be more robotic, and, yes, I believe the answer is undoubtedly INTP (although, certain versions of INTJs can tend to be rather robotic [I think it depends a lot, actually, on their enneagram type and instinctual variants [enneagram 5s and sp-dom's tend to be the more robotic ones {but the strongest positive correlation between the enneagram and the MBTI is that between Ti-dom's being enneagram 5s, so...}])", so I decided to make a thread and poll about it.
So before you spoke a word to me and I to you, you already made up your mind?
I don't make up my mind like that.
I come to a tentative conclusion, and let future evidence pointing in a different direction change my mind accordingly.
I assure you, my talking with you has not provided me with the kind of evidence to change that opinion even one iota.
Goes to show who I am dealing with.
That you would think this idiotic statement is worth writing shows precisely the kind of person I'm dealing with.
The person you called a fool initially...
I didn't call anybody foolish.
I called a person's
reasoning idiotic.
went by his definition of what robotic was
And, as I have said, it was a poor one.
I did not say as much about many other opinions in this thread.
And you called him idiotic.
Once again, no, I did not.
Go back and read the thread.
^ This.
Does not square well with this:
But idiotic is subjective...
No, it is not (necessarily).
It can be, but, when it's correct, it's correct, and is thus objective.
As I said before, go check your Ti at the door, there is such a thing as objective truth.
...and in this instance it wasn't idiotic at all because you failed at the OP to give a description.
Whether or not I gave a description in the OP does not make an opinion any less or more idiotic.
An opinion is intelligent if it gets to the core of the issue; an opinion is idiotic if it most certainly does not.
His opinion most certainly did not get to the core of what it means to be robotic, and, as such, was idiotic.
It's not my Fe trying to impose rules on you.
So you think.
I'm sorry that your opinion doesn't hold much water with me.
I've simply never found you to be a particularly insightful poster.
I'm just pointing out to you that you missed to make a point.
I'm pretty sure this is nonsensical language, but, regardless, the sentiment you were trying to express is indeed wrong.