[INTP] INTP Central

[stigmatica]

You've just proven my point

 

[bluebell]

I like Anon's summary of it, pretty accurate IMO:

I wouldn't say that I'm a part of any cliques, but I still feel reasonably accepted. At one time, you could have said that I was in a clique, though even then, I was more of a fence sitter than really a part of it. Prior to that, I didn't have any friends there, and yet I still felt accepted enough, even if people didn't pay much attention to me. Right now, I still have some friends, but we no longer converse regularly or anything.

But again, I wouldn't say that I feel like an outsider or anything. I think it's more that there's a number of certain archetypes of behavior that are accepted in INTPc, and if you fit one of them, you're more likely to be accepted and brought into one of these cliques. If you're not, there has to be something unique and creative about you (like Limey or Hustler).

Of course, this still ends up looking a lot like and behaving a lot like a cliquish pace, so I suppose the differences don't matter that much, when it comes down to it.

Pretty much. I am not saying it is based on the same things a social SJ-style clique forms (like sororities or frat houses), but the end result is simply that some people feel included and accepted and others do not, and sometimes it feels like it comes down to personalities, not content.

As far as I can tell, I reckon feeling included and accepted is in the eye of the beholder, although that's only a fairly recent insight for me. Yeah, sure, on INTPc, there are sometimes lynch mobs for some of the trolls or moobs who whine and complain about the forum culture. But outside of that, IMO feeling accepted/part of the forum has more to do with what's going on inside that person's head than any of the external interactions, or lack of them.

I'm at the point where I view even the lurkers who don't post or barely post as an integral part of the forum. Also, and this might sound a bit odd, often when I post I'm not expecting any replies. I know people read what I write. I occasionally feel invisible but if I'm being honest, that's pretty much me projecting my own insecurities onto the forum.

And the group think part of INTPc means that there often isn't any need to reply to particular posts because you know that many of the people also reading a particular thread or noticing a particular poster are thinking the same as you, so actually posting seems unnecessary.

Probably. I just think there's more chance you'll actually get a response to your post here, by SOMEONE, rather than just being routinely ignored.

Heh. I rarely get responses on here, unless I'm posting in a friend's blog or something. TypoC actually feels way more cliquey to me, but perhaps I'm misreading it which is entirely possible.

INTPc members, for whatever reason, seem to shy away from praising others for there insightfulness

Agreed. I haven't worked out yet whether that's a healthy thing or not, but it's definitely part of the forum culture.

What you say here is actually what I'm picking up, intellectually; it's just hard to overcome emotions sometimes, if one is forced to acknowledge them at all.

it's not that I'm looking for intellectual confirmation necessarily of the ideas themselves, I'm pretty confident in my thought and reasoning, I guess I participate in forums partly for the social/personal reinforcement; and getting an acknowledgment of any degree to a post is a way that I can recognize that, while I might exist wholly and fine as an isolated and independent individual, I'm still part of larger humanity and this reassures me that I am not invisible or unaccepted in the larger community.

Hmm, I suspect you may have proved my point.

 

[Totenkindly]

As far as I can tell, I reckon feeling included and accepted is in the eye of the beholder, although that's only a fairly recent insight for me. Yeah, sure, on INTPc, there are sometimes lynch mobs for some of the trolls or those who whine and complain about the forum culture. But outside of that, feeling accepted/part of the forum has more to do with what's going on inside that person's head than any of the external interactions, or lack of them.

Probably.

I was raised by ISFJs, remember? So social cues were beaten into my head as a way to judge acceptance, where it's polite to just give an "Mmmm hmmm" response even if you have nothing to contribute just so someone knows that you heard them, and if you don't, you're excluding them; and I also lived in dysfunctional environments where not getting feedback meant that people really were rejecting me.

That's my personal bias here. Uniformly INTPs expect a lot less social affirmation, so there's discomfort there when someone expects more... whether because of type or whatever reason.

And I don't think it protects against cliques. If you put out comments and routinely no one responds to you, if it's the same 15-20 people that consistently respond to each other's posts and have running discussions while not bothering to engage anyone else's comments... then you come away with the message that either your comments suck, or that they're a clique and you're not accepted, or both.

I'm at the point where I view even the lurkers who don't post or barely post as an integral part of the forum.

Why?

Also, and this might sound a bit odd, often when I post I'm not expecting any replies. I know people read what I write. I occasionally feel invisible but if I'm being honest, that's pretty much me projecting my own insecurities onto the forum.

Probably. Where I agree is that in the end our personal security as a person can't be based on other people's acknowledgments or affirmations. We're responsible for our own self-acceptance. Regardless of how one feels, if you start reacting to feelings of alienation, you will become alienated. So the "cure" is still the same -- assume you belong, and get in there, and participate, and ignore any cues or absence of cues.

But it doesn't mean the perceptions aren't accurate.

And the group think part of INTPc means that there often isn't any need to reply to particular posts because you know that many of the people also reading a particular thread or noticing a particular poster are thinking the same as you, so actually posting seems unnecessary.

I remember days when I was younger where I operated from that reasoning, but I guess my upbringing + being married + raising children really changed me. Especially the kids. If you don't affirm the kid even when they're just saying something redundant or "understood," THEY don't know that yet... they're looking for validation because they're still young, and if you don't validate them so that they can see transparently into your mind, there's a strong possibility they'll feel unloved. it depends on the kid, but in general this is even what contributed to the collective personality of Gen X -- a bunch of kids who did not get positive affirmation from parents.... so even if their parents DID love them, they didn't get any signs from the parents that really nailed it in place, and look what happened.

So who knows? Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I wasn't affirmed adequately when younger and I'm still looking for it, although I have to say I'm a lot healthier today than I was twenty years ago. I dunno.

Heh. I rarely get responses on here, unless I'm posting in a friend's blog or something. TypoC actually feels way more cliquey to me, but perhaps I'm misreading it which is entirely possible.

overall, i see people get integrated more... like I said, there's more variety, so there's more chance that someone will find a place they fit. But this could just be the difference between there being one clique, versus many cliques. And we know in some past there's been some pretty blatant cliques, although some of the people involved in those have moved on.

Hmm, I suspect you may have proved my point.

Possibly. I aim to please.

Just to be a pain in the ass on my end:
I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how long someone continues to post on a forum where no matter what or how often they post, no one responds to them. Following your logic, we should assume that we belong anyway. But I don't think human beings in general work that way -- even the most socially desensitized eventually would give up and go elsewhere and perhaps even take it personally after time passes. I think social cues matter and have impact, even if people claim they don't.

 

[Salomé]

Giving praise isn't an INTP habit. Nor do we like to receive it (well I don't). It's redundant. If I don't agree with you I'll tell you so. If I do, what's the point, unless I have something to add? This leads me to often interact most with people I can't stand, since we are seldom in agreement.
Sometimes, I will make the effort because I recognize that validation is important to other types. But then it usually feels fake.

ETA. I posted before seeing your post, Jennifer, in response to bb's. Raising kids is different. That's where self-esteem is built. Adults shouldn't need constant affirmation, IMO. It's tiresome.

Another reason I don't do this is that I hate to read through pages of nothing but +1s and LOLz. I think those should be reserved for rep, in general. Ironically, I've always considered it poor forum etiquette, but I have no idea what other people think.

 

[Totenkindly]

Giving praise isn't an INTP habit. Nor do we like to receive it ( well I don't). It's redundant. If I don't agree with you I'll tell you so. If I do, what's the point, unless I have something to add?

same here... when someone praises me, I don't even know how to respond -- for the same reasoning you've put out.

But I'm not talking about praise, I'm talking about simply providing social cues that lets someone know you're listening. Maybe online that's harder than in real life.

Why do we think INTPs have the most unhappy mates, percentage-wise, when surveyed? Unless they're taught the importance of social cues in terms of relational living (or unless they marry someone just like themselves), chances are they're not going to communicate their intentions and commitments adequately.

...ETA I posted before seeing your post, Jennifer, in response to bbs. Raising kids is different. That's where self-esteem is built. Adults shouldn't need constant affirmation ,IMO. It's tiresome.

I actually agree and thought of that as I was typing... but was too tired of the topic to bother saying it, I had to shut off the flow somewhere. Thanks for mentioning it, it was worth saying.

 

[Salomé]

^You're right!

 

[Totenkindly]

^You're right!

Yeah, like why the hell should I care what you think?

 

[Salomé]

Because I'm awesome?

You just need to be wrong more often. You're too fucking smart for your own good!

It's true about the being ignored thing. But I think if you are the only person who is being ignored, it's a valid assumption to believe that you are being singled out and rejected. At INTPc, being ignored is pretty much the default unless you are really annoying. Then you get lots of attention. That's probably why there is so much trolling there. Also paranoia about trolling.

 

[Delilah]

It's not ignoring, it's nodding in agreement like I would be doing IRL if we were sitting around having drinks. But if you really need validation I could post something like this:

*nods affirmatively, sips drink, waits for you to continue*

to let you know I agree.

 

[Salomé]

*ignores you*

 

[bluebell]

Probably.

I was raised by ISFJs, remember? So social cues were beaten into my head as a way to judge acceptance, where it's polite to just give an "Mmmm hmmm" response even if you have nothing to contribute just so someone knows that you heard them, and if you don't, you're excluding them; and I also lived in dysfunctional environments where not getting feedback meant that people really were rejecting me.

Similar upbringing here, although not really SFJ as such. I'm overly sensitive to rejection but that's my problem, not other people's. And now that I'm pretty much on top of that particularly insecurity, I'm finding it weird (probably because I'm not completely over it yet) when I get the occasional comment from someone who is overidentifying with a perception that I'm being rejected/ignored and trying to reassure me, when no reassurance is necessary. I suspect that will bug me less further down the track.

That's my personal bias here. Uniformly INTPs expect a lot less social affirmation, so there's discomfort there when someone expects more... whether because of type or whatever reason.

I've had the same personal bias. But I've found that seeking that affirmation or acknowledgement tends to feed the bias. Not saying this is the same for anyone else, but it's certainly been my experience.

And I don't think it protects against cliques. If you put out comments and routinely no one responds to you, if it's the same 15-20 people that consistently respond to each other's posts and have running discussions while not bothering to engage anyone else's comments... then you come away with the message that either your comments suck, or that they're a clique and you're not accepted, or both.

But does it matter? I get annoyed by the running discussions if it's OTT derailment/in-jokes but it's because it's disrupting the discussion in general (ie even if I haven't posted in a thread and have no intention of doing so, that behaviour annoys me because it's killing potentially good discussions with fluff).

Why?

They're an audience, they're reading the threads and posts. And some of them are interacting via PMs or whatever. Occasionally one of them will delurk and post. *shrug* It's hard to put into words, but it's how I view it. Half-assed analogy: I'm never likely to meet most of the people in my suburb but the fact that they're there makes an impression on me. I feel like I'm living in a community regardless of whether we interact or not.

Probably. Where I agree is that in the end our personal security as a person can't be based on other people's acknowledgments or affirmations. We're responsible for our own self-acceptance. Regardless of how one feels, if you start reacting to feelings of alienation, you will become alienated. So the "cure" is still the same -- assume you belong, and get in there, and participate, and ignore any cues or absence of cues.

Yes. I'm not quite sure how this relates to what you said previously. (I'm falling asleep with tiredness, my comprehension is a bit shot at the moment)

But it doesn't mean the perceptions aren't accurate.

Again, does it matter?

If you don't affirm the kid even when they're just saying something redundant or "understood," THEY don't know that yet... they're looking for validation because they're still young, and if you don't validate them so that they can see transparently into your mind, there's a strong possibility they'll feel unloved.

That makes sense for young kids. But INTPc is for adults, no?

So who knows? Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I wasn't affirmed adequately when younger and I'm still looking for it, although I have to say I'm a lot healthier today than I was twenty years ago. I dunno.

I still struggle with this at times, I'm not going to pretend I'm completely over it, but these days it's more about just noticing that it's happening but not giving into it. Giving into it tends to prolong it IME. *insert usual YMMV disclaimer*

Just to be a pain in the ass on my end:
I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how long someone continues to post on a forum where no matter what or how often they post, no one responds to them. Following your logic, we should assume that we belong anyway. But I don't think human beings in general work that way -- even the most socially desensitized eventually would give up and go elsewhere and perhaps even take it personally after time passes. I think social cues matter and have impact, even if people claim they don't.

I've had similar experiences on a couple of forums. There's another forum I'm on where I don't think I've had a response to anything I've written for months. I still post/read when I feel like it. The lack of response is pretty much because I haven't made any effort to reach out to anyone (that's that particular forum culture) and I don't feel the need to. I'm still part of that community though. I get what I need from it, which doesn't really require interaction.

Edit: lol, I type slow.

 

[Delilah]

*ignores you*

*sips drink and smirks knowingly*

 

[Totenkindly]

Because I'm awesome?

Goes without saying.

You just need to be wrong more often. You're too fucking smart for your own good!

I always did think my life would be happier if my IQ was 10-20 points lower.

It's true about the being ignored thing. But I think if you are the only person who is being ignored, it's a valid assumption to believe that you are being singled out and rejected. At INTPc, being ignored is pretty much the default unless you are really annoying. Then you get lots of attention.

Lol, okay, you got me on that bit.

no wonder we see people acting out, though, just to get attention.

*ignores you*

The inherent paradox here is making my head swim.

 

[mippus]

Hmm, it is not because we do not know how to respond to it, that we don't like praise. Just not the obvious praise. We do like to be right, don't we? And thus we are not insensitive to people telling us we are right. Great compliment. And we like it...
(I know I am speaking for myself, and I am low on N and P, so that may play a role...)

 

[pippi]

Just to be a pain in the ass on my end:
I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how long someone continues to post on a forum where no matter what or how often they post, no one responds to them. Following your logic, we should assume that we belong anyway. But I don't think human beings in general work that way -- even the most socially desensitized eventually would give up and go elsewhere and perhaps even take it personally after time passes. I think social cues matter and have impact, even if people claim they don't.

Not very long. Both the activity of the cliques bantering over top of what other people posted in threads and not seeing any response to the topical posts in threads (mine and others) contributed to me rarely bothering to post on this forum. That kind of dynamic is very discouraging. So similar to bluebell, I post in a few blogs and avoid the rest of the forum. I'm willing to contribute if I know someone will actually read what I write, but I'm not interested in posting into a vacuum. I have better things to do with my time and other options elsewhere online. Some people are interested in obtaining acceptance by the cliques and put in the effort to do so, I'm not interested in that at all.

Yes, I'm aware that most people won't read this post or care what I say, this post is not for them.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, I'm aware that most people won't read this post or care what I say, this post is not for them.

Oh they might read it, they just won't answer it apparently.

 

[Blank]

I read it and am going to be courteous enough to display that I have acknowledged it.

 

[Delilah]

I read it and am going to be courteous enough to display that I have acknowledged it.

Worst. INTP. Ever.

 

[Kaizer]

I was raised by ISFJs, remember? So social cues were beaten into my head as a way to judge acceptance, where it's polite to just give an "Mmmm hmmm" response even if you have nothing to contribute just so someone knows that you heard them, and if you don't, you're excluding them; and I also lived in dysfunctional environments where not getting feedback meant that people really were rejecting me.

Sometimes, I will make the effort because I recognize that validation is important to other types. But then it usually feels fake.

But I'm not talking about praise, I'm talking about simply providing social cues that lets someone know you're listening. Maybe online that's harder than in real life.

Why do we think INTPs have the most unhappy mates, percentage-wise, when surveyed? Unless they're taught the importance of social cues in terms of relational living (or unless they marry someone just like themselves), chances are they're not going to communicate their intentions and commitments adequately.

I have seen this as a combination of 3 things or consisting of 3 parts that aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or exhaustive. Letting ppl know you're listening/paying attention; validation through communicating one's agreement or the lack of disagreement; praising someone or admitting one's own mistake or flaw etc.

The first two, I think, are closer to each other. I agree with Jennifer that letting ppl know that you're participating is part of 'social norm' or 'courtesy' to a degree. As for admitting one's mistake or flaw, Ti takes a while for an exhaustive analysis and so even when its seemingly obvious it isn't taken as a given and final judgment is passed once the Ti loop has been traversed at least once even if in a short circuited sorta way. This second might be one of the reasons why Ss & Js might have a problem with INTPs.

Giving praise isn't an INTP habit. Nor do we like to receive it ( well I don't). It's redundant. If I don't agree with you I'll tell you so. If I do, what's the point, unless I have something to add? This leads me to often interact most with people I can't stand, since we are seldom in agreement.

same here... when someone praises me, I don't even know how to respond -- for the same reasoning you've put out.

Knowing how to react when praised by others or reacting 'appropriately' is tricky and mildly discomforting at least.
Giving praise does seem or has the propensity to seem fake. I did realize though that the insight, given specific PsOV borne of innate ability & preference, results in not everyone having awareness of or access to that POV or insight. Hence when expressing that which seems like praise or actually is praising someone, what might be essential is that, in the interest of the larger picture and with efficiency in mind as well as a sense of 'justice', the said person should be made aware of it and maybe (preferably) just them (esp. since most/a lot of ppl seem to believe in life as being essentially barter) without it becoming complicated, hopefully that is.

 

[Tallulah]

Probably.

I was raised by ISFJs, remember? So social cues were beaten into my head as a way to judge acceptance, where it's polite to just give an "Mmmm hmmm" response even if you have nothing to contribute just so someone knows that you heard them, and if you don't, you're excluding them; and I also lived in dysfunctional environments where not getting feedback meant that people really were rejecting me.

That's my personal bias here. Uniformly INTPs expect a lot less social affirmation, so there's discomfort there when someone expects more... whether because of type or whatever reason.

And I don't think it protects against cliques. If you put out comments and routinely no one responds to you, if it's the same 15-20 people that consistently respond to each other's posts and have running discussions while not bothering to engage anyone else's comments... then you come away with the message that either your comments suck, or that they're a clique and you're not accepted, or both.



Why?



Probably. Where I agree is that in the end our personal security as a person can't be based on other people's acknowledgments or affirmations. We're responsible for our own self-acceptance. Regardless of how one feels, if you start reacting to feelings of alienation, you will become alienated. So the "cure" is still the same -- assume you belong, and get in there, and participate, and ignore any cues or absence of cues.

But it doesn't mean the perceptions aren't accurate.



I remember days when I was younger where I operated from that reasoning, but I guess my upbringing + being married + raising children really changed me. Especially the kids. If you don't affirm the kid even when they're just saying something redundant or "understood," THEY don't know that yet... they're looking for validation because they're still young, and if you don't validate them so that they can see transparently into your mind, there's a strong possibility they'll feel unloved. it depends on the kid, but in general this is even what contributed to the collective personality of Gen X -- a bunch of kids who did not get positive affirmation from parents.... so even if their parents DID love them, they didn't get any signs from the parents that really nailed it in place, and look what happened.

So who knows? Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I wasn't affirmed adequately when younger and I'm still looking for it, although I have to say I'm a lot healthier today than I was twenty years ago. I dunno.



overall, i see people get integrated more... like I said, there's more variety, so there's more chance that someone will find a place they fit. But this could just be the difference between there being one clique, versus many cliques. And we know in some past there's been some pretty blatant cliques, although some of the people involved in those have moved on.



Possibly. I aim to please.

Just to be a pain in the ass on my end:
I think it would be an interesting experiment to see how long someone continues to post on a forum where no matter what or how often they post, no one responds to them. Following your logic, we should assume that we belong anyway. But I don't think human beings in general work that way -- even the most socially desensitized eventually would give up and go elsewhere and perhaps even take it personally after time passes. I think social cues matter and have impact, even if people claim they don't.

Not surprisingly, I agree with Jennifer. But I was also raised in a big "social cue" environment, as well.

My problem with INTPc was definitely the feeling of people talking over me to engage each other. I guess because I felt like in a group of INTP people, it would seem like the ideas would be the more important variables, rather than the pure social factor. And yeah, I noticed that I wasn't the only one getting ignored, but that was maybe even more frustrating, because you just feel like, "Okay, gotcha. Everyone's already formed their friendships and there's no point in trying to shoehorn your way into the discussion."

Like Jennifer said, here, someone is going to respond to you. And if they don't respond to every single post you make, no biggie at all. That's normal conversation. But you're not going to make 25 posts in several different topics and have no one respond, and that might very well be the case at INTPc. I'm not an attention whore, but I don't like to post in a vacuum, like pippi says, either. I do think it's going to be different when you have a whole board of INTPs, though--because we don't feel the need to have 4,000bestest friends, and it can be overwhelming to have to keep up with a bunch of newbies that might not even stick around. It's just strange to me that more people on INTPc don't pick up a new person's idea and respond to it, even if they don't care about getting to know the person themselves.