INTJ "Intelligent" Myth

[Poki]

hot and sweaty and stumbled into a cedar tree that poked and scratched me

nature is out to get me today, I swear!

Yeah, thats what happens when you switch to INTJ.

 

[Zarathustra]

These strike me as Te-oriented assumptions that knowledge which accomplishes more tangible, external world goals is inherently superior to knowledge which does not.

By what means can you judge discovering the theory of relativity inherently superior to getting along well with people? Isn't this dependent on your own personal priorities in terms of what's important in life?

Is that the BEST shot you've got?

 

[miss fortune]

Yeah, thats what happens when you switch to INTJ.

INTJs go outdoors?

 

[Zarathustra]

I love the outdoors

 

[Zarathustra]

But then again, I AM an ESFP!

 

[simulatedworld]

Is that the BEST shot you've got?

By your reasoning, Buddhist monks in secluded monasteries are wasting their lives on reaching better internal contentment through self-understanding if they don't share that information with others in a way that can be applied to advancing some external cause. But advancing external causes is not a priority in their value system--only finding inner peace is. Why is this an inferior value system?

Your sarcastic response here is founded on another Te assumption that it's somehow objectively obvious that your idea of what constitutes a well-lived life is more correct than others.

 

[Poki]

By your reasoning, Buddhist monks in secluded monasteries are wasting their lives on reaching better internal contentment through self-understanding if they don't share that information with others in a way that can be applied to advancing some external cause. But advancing external causes is not a priority in their value system--only finding inner peace is. Why is this an inferior value system?

Your sarcastic response here is founded on another Te assumption that it's somehow objectively obvious that your idea of what constitutes a well-lived life is more correct than others.

Is this gonna be on the test?

 

[miss fortune]

But then again, I AM an ESFP!

you like BEER outdoors... and cheerleader babes in short skirts

on the other hand, I prefer to sit at home and plan world domination and the superiority of INTJs on my computer

 

[Zarathustra]

By your reasoning, Buddhist monks in secluded monasteries are wasting their lives on reaching better internal contentment through self-understanding if they don't share that information with others in a way that can be applied to advancing some external cause. But advancing external causes is not a priority in their value system--only finding inner peace is. Why is this an inferior value system?

Your sarcastic response here is founded on another Te assumption that it's somehow objectively obvious that your idea of what constitutes a well-lived life is more correct than others.

Hey man, I'm not saying I have any problem with Buddhist monks, nor do I think that inner peace is an unworthy goal -- for God's sake man, I do yoga three times a week!

But I WOULDN'T say that those Buddhist monks are SMARTER or MORE INTELLIGENT than EINSTEIN!

 

[Zarathustra]

And I WOULD say the CONVERSE to that statement.

 

[miss fortune]

I would say that you are using a narrow view of intelligence there

NOW BONG THIS BEER AND LEER AT SOME BOOBS!!!!!

 

[PeaceBaby]

But I WOULDN'T say that those Buddhist monks are SMARTER or MORE INTELLIGENT than EINSTEIN!

That's very subjective of you ...

 

[Zarathustra]

That's very subjective of you ...

And I'd beg to differ.

 

[Poki]

And I WOULD say the CONVERSE to that statement.

Yeah, with world domination it would be kinda unintelligent to study budhist monk ethics. I see your point.

 

[miss fortune]

That's very subjective of you ...

well... he IS a feeler today

 

[simulatedworld]

And I WOULD say the CONVERSE to that statement.

I think labeling either more intelligent than the other is probably a mistake because they're exercising different kinds of intelligence.

Why is Einstein smarter? Because he accomplished a goal that you, from your own biases, consider more worthwhile than the accomplishments of the monks? You're still operating from a fundamental assumption that the type of intelligence you value is objectively superior.

How about a guy who cures cancer? Surely most people would declare him a saint for accomplishing something so wonderful, but that's based on the assumption that perpetuating human life is a good thing. From the neutral perspective of the universe, "good" and "bad" don't exist; they're just arbitrary value judgments based on our own personal biases.

What if, from the perspective of some alien race, humans are a dangerous and violent species and perpetuating their existence via curing cancer is actually bad?

 

[onemoretime]

But I WOULDN'T say that those Buddhist monks are SMARTER or MORE INTELLIGENT than EINSTEIN!

I bet you if you lived in Hiroshima or Nagasaki around January of 1946, you'd disagree.

 

[Zarathustra]

I think labeling either more intelligent than the other is probably a mistake because they're exercising different kinds of intelligence.

Why is Einstein smarter? Because he accomplished a goal that you, from your own biases, consider more worthwhile than the accomplishments of the monks?

No, I'd call Einstein more intelligent, as I would of Newton, and Galileo, and Plato, and Descartes, and Nietzsche, and many others, because they discovered and/or invented something that shaped the course of human history using their minds, and because most other human beings would never have been able to do what they did, because they lack the intelligence to do so.

Many human beings, on the other hand, can do what the monks are doing.

And, in many ways, the monks are merely doing what dogs do naturally.

And I have nothing against dogs or monks; as I said before, I do yoga and meditate regularly.

I'm just saying, for the most part, they're not as intelligent as those people I named above.

How about a guy who cures cancer?

Cancer is never gunna be cured. Cancer is what happens to life after it's existed long enough to have complications/imperfections arise (and multiply).

That being said: that guy would probably be pretty intelligent.

Surely most people would declare him a saint for accomplishing something so wonderful, but that's based on the assumption that perpetuating human life is a good thing.

This isn't about saintliness; it's about intelligence.

From the neutral perspective of the universe, "good" and "bad" don't exist; they're just arbitrary value judgments based on our own personal biases.

It's flawed to simply assume that the universe is neutral.

Same goes for the stated position on good and bad.

What if, from the perspective of some alien race, humans are a dangerous and violent species and perpetuating their existence via curing cancer is actually bad?

That would be their subjective perspective.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, with world domination it would be kinda unintelligent to study budhist monk ethics. I see your point.

To be honest, I strongly disagree.

Studying them is just one step towards my global *liberation*.

 

[Zarathustra]

I bet you if you lived in Hiroshima or Nagasaki around January of 1946, you'd disagree.

Hey, Onemoretime!

Good thing you showed up to say something totally irrelevant (and that I and everyone else could care less about)!