[INTP] Rant on INTPs

[The_Liquid_Laser]

That's a bit vague. We'd need to see more of her. That is why I said I cant type her because I dont have enough information to clearly recognize the patterns of her unconscious tendencies.

You are the one who originally suggested that she does not behave like an INTJ. If you cannot produce sufficient evidence for what type you think she is, then you can't reasonably criticize others for the same. :rolli:

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You are the one who originally suggested that she does not behave like an INTJ. If you cannot produce sufficient evidence for what type you think she is, then you can't reasonably criticize others for the same. :rolli:

Yes, I said she behaves in a way that isn't to be expected from an INTJ on this forum. Didn't say that she wasnt one.

Most INTJs on this board are unlikely to say 'I am not going to argue with you, agree to disagree', before even the initial premises were set up.

And they tend to be less interested in personal anecdotes. But again, this is only behavior, not unconscious tendencies. So we're not even talking type here...

 

[SolitaryWalker]

We are simply going back and forth saying the same thing in different ways. Whether you say it in several paragraphs or in two sentences you are essentially saying, "INP's are not arrogant. We are simply better than everyone else." :rolli:

I think that the mindset of pursuing a purpose that you know you will never achieve will pull you towards humility much more than the notion that your type is most likely to gravitate towards the quest for a higher purpose than all other types will pull you towards arrogance. Unlike EJs, such a notion INPs are unlikely to whole-heartedly embrace as they tend not to think it important to compare themselves to others. Hence, that is another reason to think that this will contribute little towards them becoming arrogant.

 

[girlnamedbless]

Boring. I had an INTP teacher, and I could barely keep my eyes open

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Boring. I had an INTP teacher, and I could barely keep my eyes open

What subject was he teaching?

 

[INTJMom]

Eh. I see these things as situational personality type adaptations. IOW, given a difficult social situation, then:

INTPs will obfuscate their way around it,
INTJs will charge it head on and bowl it over,
and INFPs will use a little feel-good sleight-of-hand to tiptoe past it.

Each personality type is quite sure that their method of handling the situation causes the least fuss and harm, and each type is a little shocked at how the other types handle the situation. Watching each other deal with the situation, the INFPs accuse INTJs of being bullies, and the INTJs accuse the INFPs of being liars. In turn, INTPs may well come off as manipulators to both the INTJ and INFP.

Or, alternatively, all three personality types can adjust their filters and accept that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

All personality types have their typical shortcuts or nickel-and-dime rip-offs in response to difficult situations, especially when viewed through the filter of another personality type. But assuming that we're talking about average representatives of each type, then these shortcuts or petty rip-offs typically don't rise to the level of criminality or sociopathic deceit.

IOW, if you have an employee of another personality type, then you understand that they have their own way of dealing with certain situations. You adjust your filter in a way that allows you to see their basic honesty and not get too riled that they do things differently from you, and you go ahead and entrust them with the till (until such time as their shortcuts or rip-offs rise to the level of universally-acknowledged untrustworthiness or criminality).

This philosophy may sound too feel-good or wishy-washy for everyone. But I was a sergeant in the Marines for a lot of years. As a sergeant in charge of troops, I couldn't just fire or transfer the troops when they pulled a petty rip-off or didn't do things my way. And their rip-offs usually didn't rise to the level of chargeable crimes. Nor could I run around beating up on them for being bullies and manipulators and liars when I didn't like their methods--after all, I needed them to get the work done around the place. You work with what you've got.

So I learned to adjust my filter to account for the troops and I accepted that there's more than one way to skin a cat. I kept order and maintained discipline by identifying and curbing the worst excesses, and otherwise I gave the troops some leeway and let them use their own initiative as much as possible. After all, I couldn't do all the work all by myself. Ultimately, we all got along just fine and got the job done. Again, you work with what you've got.

I agree with your assessment,
and I have chosen a similar "filter adjustment".

It mostly comes from the posts that she's made in her intro thread. I've talked to her about her family and she gave responses that I would expect from an INTJ. Also she hits enter after every sentence. Unconventional behavior like that is what you would expect from a dominant intuitor. (Unless she was trained to do that in some context that I am not aware of.)

tee-hee

I have been learning about MBTI for over 15 years. I have been using books by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron, Kiersey, and Naomi L. Quenk. I use MBTI as a way to deal with people in real life as I have no natural ability to do so.

The reason I am an I is because given the choice I would rather spend the rest of my life on a deserted island, than on a similar island inhabited by 100 people.
I can extrovert, but it exhausts me.

The reason I am an N is because I do not take in tiny bits of information around me the way the Ss in my life do.
I tend to see the big picture, the whole problem, and frequently feel overwhelmed when my problem seem like an insurmountable mountain which I am incapable of breaking up into bite-sized pieces.
(I have learned to use S more because of my ISTP husband, but it's not natural.)

The reason I am a T is because as a child I was cruel and tactless. I did not naturally empathize with people and did not care about their feelings. Caring about feelings is exhausting! I have, for the last 20 years however, been learning to be more diplomatic because I think it's better than going around offending everyone in my path. I do it quite enough on an accidental basis.

The reason I am a J is because I MUST know everything NOW. I don't want to keep my options open. I DON'T want to cross that bridge when I come to it. I cannot stand the unknown.

That said, the only professional test I have taken is the DISC test. You are probably familiar with it as you seem thoroughly studied. I came out D/C both times. Are you familiar with the graph results? Well, both times I took the test, several years apart, the administrator of the test said the graph showed that I suffered from some sort of inner conflict, but did not explain further. The only sense I have ever been able to make out of that comment is what I have read from Kiersey about the motivation of the INFJ to "be the best that they can be" (rough paraphrase of the idea). This describes me. Not only that but many of the common strengths of the INTJ, I feel that I do not possess. Sadly, I possess all the weaknesses. When I read Kiersey's description of the NF, I feel that it describes me quite a bit, though of course, not completely. It took many years for me to come to the place of admitting and accepting that I am first and foremostly a T. Up to now, I have been understanding myself as an INTJ on the outside, and an INFJ on the inside. I believe the reason for it must lie in the fact that I came from a severely dysfunctional home.



(The reason I am not shortening my margin is because for some reason it appears to distract INTPs, and because this is so long.)

 

[INTJMom]

I dont have data, its all pure reasoning.

There is no such thing as "pure reasoning".
In order for your reasoning to be pure, you would have to be pure.
Everyone sees life through a set of tinted glasses that slightly skews their perceptions.
It's impossible for your reasoning to not be tainted by your soul.

I suppose, I am really asking what made you feel manipulated (small sample size or not). Feel free to use fake names to protect identity etc.

I can PM you later when I get a chance. I don't want to make it public just because of the subject matter.

I noticed that at least a couple of the INTPs who you interpreted as rude were being facetious, but you took their jokes quite literally, which surprised me, since INTJs don't typically respond in that fashion.

I am surprised that you think my response was atypical. I have always been very serious and I have read in many places that INTJs tend to be serious.

One of the lessons my husband (ISTP) has had to learn with his little smart-aleck remarks is sometimes they are appropriate, and sometimes they are not.

Perhaps those INTPs should learn that perhaps they should let a person get to know you first before you start cracking smart remarks. What kind of a welcome is it when someone meets you for the very first time and says, oh great, another one. THAT is NOT a welcome. That is a slam. Even though I felt hurt, I did not allow myself to respond in a rude manner. It was only after the second one that I began to feel that I was unwelcome and I spoke up for myself.

Maybe INTPs should learn that cracking mean jokes to perfect strangers is not appropriate.

Yes, I said she behaves in a way that isn't to be expected from an INTJ on this forum. Didn't say that she wasnt one.

Most INTJs on this board are unlikely to say 'I am not going to argue with you, agree to disagree', before even the initial premises were set up.

And they tend to be less interested in personal anecdotes. But again, this is only behavior, not unconscious tendencies. So we're not even talking type here...

The reason I did not want to argue with you is because I hate fighting a lost war. You are all set up in your mighty fortress, and my little pea-shooter is not going to have any effect.

 

[girlnamedbless]

What subject was he teaching?

Humanities, which was supposed to be about religion, etc. His approach was so weird. Instead of learning the basics, he would jump into the scriptures and want to go into the sacred texts and examine them. Then he would ramble on, jump from subject to subject, and instead of notes/lectures he would just scribble words on the board.

I'm in a religions class right now and it's a lot better. I guess we take what you could call the more "S" approach - looking at the history, finding out how it affected people, and the basics. I learned more in the last two weeks than I did all of last school year.

 

[substitute]

Bless them, they're like a rehabilitated Borg sometimes in groups - trying so hard to fit in and join the conversation, looking for something they can respond to, and end up leaping in with an etymology of the phrase 'check mate' when someone mentions that they're going to buy a chess board... haha...

Close your eyes and FEEEEEEL the tumbleweed

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The reason I did not want to argue with you is because I hate fighting a lost war. You are all set up in your mighty fortress, and my little pea-shooter is not going to have any effect.

You can only seige the fortress with hard logic. That is Ti, your faculties appear to be dearth of this subtance.

There is no such thing as "pure reasoning".
In order for your reasoning to be pure, you would have to be pure.
Everyone sees life through a set of tinted glasses that slightly skews their perceptions.
It's impossible for your reasoning to not be tainted by your soul..

There can be no doubt that we all have intuitions and feelings and they intermingle with our thinking. To be objective means not to eliminate those faculties, but merely seperate your reasoning from them.

Perhaps those INTPs should learn that perhaps they should let a person get to know you first before you start cracking smart remarks...

Ps, especially NPs tend to be very subtle in their communication. They'd expect you to pick up on their cues intuitively, as they apply their intuition to the external world. (NP is a code for Extroverted Intuition).

One of the lessons my husband (ISTP) has had to learn with his little smart-aleck remarks is sometimes they are appropriate, and sometimes they are not....

Unfortunately, introverted judgers (Ps), tend to have little regard for etiquette. Aspecially ITPs. This is the case because only ethical actions that show integrity of inner character have merit. Otherwise it is mere cant. As for example, Js will often do good without being good. Be polite, without being sincere. As you've implied this is what those INTPs who were rude to you should do. What good would it have been for them to be polite to you if they never meant you well?

 

[miked277]

Bless them, they're like a rehabilitated Borg sometimes in groups - trying so hard to fit in and join the conversation, looking for something they can respond to, and end up leaping in with an etymology of the phrase 'check mate' when someone mentions that they're going to buy a chess board... haha...

Close your eyes and FEEEEEEL the tumbleweed

haha

 

[INTJMom]

...Unfortunately, introverted judgers (Ps), tend to have little regard for etiquette. Aspecially ITPs. This is the case because only ethical actions that show integrity of inner character have merit. Otherwise it is mere cant. As for example, Js will often do good without being good. Be polite, without being sincere. As you've implied this is what those INTPs who were rude to you should do. What good would it have been for them to be polite to you if they never meant you well?

Etiquette is what makes civilization civilized.
It is socially acceptable everywhere.

I can admire people who refuse to act but out of integrity,
but even Bambi was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

 

[ygolo]

Etiquette is what makes civilization civilized.
It is socially acceptable everywhere.

No it is not. What makes civilization civlilized is collaboration, not ettiquete. In fact, it is collobaration through competition in out businesses and science and technology that seems to seperate us most from "savages".

This may be somewhat tangential to what you were talking about, but Jeff Dahmer belived strongly in etiquette as well.

Morality is not just manners on a larger scale. IMO that equating morality and manner is a bad thing. I believe we should not confuse offence with true harm.

I can admire people who refuse to act but out of integrity,
but even Bambi was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Imagine if our Civil Rights leaders acted that way. I am sure they had plenty of criticism for the Jim Crow laws and they said those not-so-nice things.

 

[Totenkindly]

You can only seige the fortress with hard logic. That is Ti, your faculties appear to be dearth of this subtance.

Or just pass over the fortress completely and go visit a more hospitable and accessible town. *shrug*

There can be no doubt that we all have intuitions and feelings and they intermingle with our thinking. To be objective means not to eliminate those faculties, but merely seperate your reasoning from them.

Is that possible? Can we truly separate it? How do we determine whether or not we've separated it? How can we possibly stand outside of our own process? How do we speak and think without words -- or at least be able to articulate and be self-aware of what our thoughts are, without words?

I'm sure by now you've understood that what you describe is an ideal, but one that we will never reach. We're all flawed and limited... and I think that was her point.

Ps, especially NPs tend to be very subtle in their communication. They'd expect you to pick up on their cues intuitively, as they apply their intuition to the external world. (NP is a code for Extroverted Intuition).

Then apparently there is a flaw on both sides -- her misperceptions of their intention, and their misperceptions of what everyone else should be capable of.

Communication is a two-way street, you know. Both sides need to ante up. And technically, I'd give a "guest" or a newer member a little more flex, and expect more of those who are already part of the group, if you have to force me to make a flat-out ruling.

Unfortunately, introverted judgers (Ps), tend to have little regard for etiquette. Aspecially ITPs. This is the case because only ethical actions that show integrity of inner character have merit. Otherwise it is mere cant. As for example, Js will often do good without being good. Be polite, without being sincere. As you've implied this is what those INTPs who were rude to you should do. What good would it have been for them to be polite to you if they never meant you well?

Typical Ti obfuscation, like FineLine mentioned earlier. We don't need a philosophical analysis or similar. This is not a philosophical question.

Situation:

Round #1: She was a new member, she didn't know people yet, and they were expecting her to properly interpret their jokes. She tried to ignore it and when it persisted, she got frustrated.

Round #2: She finally complained, and instead of apologizing and having both sides compromise and say, "oops, sorry, didn't mean it, we're all friends now, right?", instead now we're into a debate about who (effectively) should have known better and why the other side wasn't perceptive enough to change their behavior.

This is really a minor blot and can be compensated for by both sides just making their intentions clear, apologizing, and moving on. Don't complicate things unnecessarily.

No it is not. What makes civilization civlilized is collaboration, not ettiquete. In fact, it is collobaration through competition in out businesses and science and technology that seems to seperate us most from "savages".

This may be somewhat tangential to what you were talking about, but Jeff Dahmer belived strongly in etiquette as well.

Morality is not just manners on a larger scale. IMO that equating morality and manner is a bad thing. I believe we should not confuse offence with true harm.

I agree with your overall concept, but in this situation I think you're missing the point. This situation was about etiquette/kindness/communication; people weren't extending that to INTJMom; and, true, she overextended herself in trying to justify why people should have been kinder to her. Still, I'm inclined to give her some slack, and debunking her over-extension only obfuscates the issue, which has little to do about the philosophical difference between etiquette and collaboration.

(I mean, come on -- when I reduced it to that, didn't you hear how SILLY it sounds to take it in that direction? No biggie. Just use that Ti to cut to the essence of the problem at hand, rather than getting esoteric on everyone.)

 

[ygolo]

Typical Ti obfuscation, like FineLine mentioned earlier. We don't need a philosophical analysis or similar. This is not a philosophical question.

"Typical Ti obfuscation" - we really ought to have a discussion about the semantics loaded in that statement.

Situation:

Round #1: She was a new member, she didn't know people yet, and they were expecting her to properly interpret their jokes. She tried to ignore it and when it persisted, she got frustrated.

Round #2: She finally complained, and instead of apologizing and having both sides compromise and say, "oops, sorry, didn't mean it, we're all friends now, right?", instead now we're into a debate about who (effectively) should have known better and why the other side wasn't perceptive enough to change their behavior.

This is really a minor blot and can be compensated for by both sides just making their intentions clear, apologizing, and moving on. Don't complicate things unnecessarily.

Somehow, context from other threads got mixed into this one. No-offence, Jennifer, but I thought we are ranting about INTPs in this thread in an attempt to understand the criticism (which leads to debate).

Why continue posting and reading a thread on a discussion forum, if we can't discuss?

I agree with your overall concept, but in this situation I think you're missing the point. This situation was about etiquette/kindness/communication; people weren't extending that to INTJMom; and, true, she overextended herself in trying to justify why people should have been kinder to her. Still, I'm inclined to give her some slack, and debunking her over-extension only obfuscates the issue, which has little to do about the philosophical difference between etiquette and collaboration.

(I mean, come on -- when I reduced it to that, didn't you hear how SILLY it sounds to take it in that direction? No biggie. Just use that Ti to cut to the essence of the problem at hand, rather than getting esoteric on everyone.)

I find the notion that we need to be familar with the context of posts from other threads to post on this thread ridiculous.

I check in every once in a while on threads I am interested in, or new posts I find interesting, while at work. I have not (and will not) read the whole forum to post on a single thread.

 

[Athenian200]

"Typical Ti obfuscation" - we really ought to have a discussion about the semantics loaded in that statement.

That would be Ne, not Ti. Ne creates those sort of mental shifts... Ti tries to see the underlying essence. Ti combined with Ne can increase the complexity of the idea being employed in obfuscation (if you call it that), but it's really the Ne that shifts the context, and possibly addresses to a tangential/secondary idea to the primary one.

Well, that's what I would have thought, anyway.

Somehow, context from other threads got mixed into this one. No-offence, Jennifer, but I thought we are ranting about INTPs in this thread in an attempt to understand the criticism (which leads to debate).

Why continue posting and reading a thread on a discussion forum, if we can't discuss?

Many of the forum regulars have been here so long they've seen almost every thread, and forget that others haven't. Also, Jennifer is probably trying to avoid hurt feelings. This situation could be perceived as an argument rather than a discussion from an Fe perspective, and Jennifer's at a point in her life where she's more focused on Fe.

I find the notion that we need to be familiar with the context of posts from other threads to post on this thread ridiculous.

I check in every once in a while on threads I am interested in, or new posts I find interesting, while at work. I have not (and will not) read the whole forum to post on a single thread.

Well, if you read carefully, you can see what they meant without actually seeing the other thread just from their tone and reaction. If you have a "feel" for how they think, you don't have to know what they actually said to follow the conversation. That's probably a bit harder to do without Ni or Fe, though.

Since many of the posters in this thread are NP's... that was bound to happen. You'll find threads here derail and cross-reference each other frequently. We've gotten kind of lazy about keeping threads relevant and on-topic here, so your criticism is valid.

But for the record, I personally never assume much context on this board aside from basic MBTI knowledge, unless I'm talking to a specific person.

 

[ygolo]

Well, if you read carefully, you can see what they meant without actually seeing the other thread just from their tone and reaction. If you have a "feel" for how they think, you don't have to know what they actually said to follow the conversation. That's probably a bit harder to do without Ni or Fe, though.

I have a hard time judging tone IRL, let alone, in text. I always thought it was actually a cultural thing. Some people swear every time they hear German, that the person speaking is angry. I know a person who says that every time he hears Cantonese, he thinks the speaker is bargaining (or something to that effect, I don't remember exactly). I have acquaintances who say that all tech-support people are "arrogant". Upon probing, it seems like they just find people using terms they don't know, "arrogant".

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

INTP's can't be morally beaten in arguments..

1) They've thought about it more.
2) They don't care if you'll hold a grudge after being beaten, other that they'll be proud of it.
3) If there is a subject area where you would win an INTP, they probably dont care to argumentate about it, and dont feel bad for it.
4) If they've been beaten, you've actually helped them forward.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Etiquette is what makes civilization civilized.
It is socially acceptable everywhere..

What is the good of 'civilized'.?

I can admire people who refuse to act but out of integrity,
but even Bambi was taught if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Does Bambi not saying anything when he had nothing nice to say make him a better person? Wouldn't him having sinister motives towards the other person make him wicked irrespectively of whether he showed by saying something 'not nice' or not?

You seem to be confusing the appearance for essence.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Is that possible? Can we truly separate it? How do we determine whether or not we've separated it? How can we possibly stand outside of our own process? How do we speak and think without words -- or at least be able to articulate and be self-aware of what our thoughts are, without words?.)

Its possible. You either solved the mathematical problem correctly or you did not. Laws of hard logic either confirm that your reasoning is sound, or they do not. Abstract reasoning, or mathematical logic can be applied to any problem that we embark on. That is the cornerstone of rationalist epistemology and does well to outline the true essence of a Ti approach to ideas.

I'm sure by now you've understood that what you describe is an ideal, but one that we will never reach. We're all flawed and limited... and I think that was her point.?.)

Inability to arrive at that point completely is no good excuse to refuse to try. We can always attain primacy of dispassionate thought over our prejudices, that should be good enough. Accomplishments in the inner world of mathematicians, physicists and philosophers attest to the possibility of this goal can being achieved. What we have is a conformity of feelings to the orders of dispassionate thoughts, not a negation of feelings. After we have come to understand ourselves thoroughly, we will have come to terms with ourselves and will be anxiety free because we have accepted it all. Such an understanding always leads feelings to conform to thoughts. As for example when you solve a mathematical problem and have every reason to believe that it is true, feelings have nowhere to go but to cheer you on. This is how it will be when you have attained such an understanding in regards to more complex issues in life. Had you collected sufficient amount of information and reasoned properly, you would be able to attain such an understanding.