[INTP] Rant on INTPs

[ygolo]

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.

I actually don't have issues with cross-references etc. I just like it to be explicit. I am not a mind reader. Nor do I want to read every post (or even every thread) that is posted. If I am starting a new thread, I will search to see if there is something similar (though I am not too sure the search function works that well).

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.

Why are arguments about winning and loosing? For me, it is a way of exploring different logical facets and perspectives (and of-course testing for logical consistency).

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Why are arguments about winning and loosing? For me, it is a way of exploring different logical facets and perspectives (and of-course testing for logical consistency).

It just needs a bit of observation to see if someone starts the conversation that way.

Now is there something you have against winning and losing?

Would you be willing to compromise the quality of the discussion in order to get rid of the "competition" aspect?

Of course, most discussions are not competitions, and it would be imprudent to elevate them to such level.

 

[ygolo]

It just needs a bit of observation to see if someone starts the conversation that way.

Now is there something you have against winning and losing?

Would you be willing to compromise the quality of the discussion in order to get rid of the "competition" aspect?

Of course, most discussions are not competitions, and it would be imprudent to elevate them to such level.

The adversarial nature of it is essential to keep from fooling ourselves. That is why both science and the justice system are set-up that way (to keep from collectively fooling ourselves). Competition is a good thing. It's just that when I compete, I almost don't care if I win or loose (I use the result as feedback on my style of play).

Like today, I played almost the exact same "loosing" line in chess games against a friend, till I found an improvement that gave me equality or better (I was black). Others may have cared that they lost 3 or four games in a row, in almost exactly the same way, and I probably looked silly to my friend. But, I found a variation that gave equality (probably better). I had a gut feeling there was something there I was missing, and didn't mind loosing many chess games to find it.

I think he's an ENTP. Next time, he'll probably have yet another variation on mine that will refute my line once again....and so the fun and edification continues.

 

[CzeCze]

Just my 2 cents as I have 2 close friends who are INTP's -- 1 is much more touchy feely and expressive of their amicability towards me and the other is tougher cookie. Both can come out of nowhere with sudden rants or tangents about how they don't like me using a particular word or that I am being ________.

Both intellectualize a lot and seem to like my ENFP ability to follow and flow of conversation.

One INTP friend is a bit of a push-over and does way too much for acquaintances but is supremely generous with friends.

The other INTP is also wonderfully generous with friends and can be quite hospitable with random strangers (sometimes at the expense of the time and energy of other people who she 'volunteers' to help) -- but then she can be just plain MEAN!!! Mean and impossible to reason with!

She is just straight up harsh sometimes and comes to these snap judgements about my character and I have to jokingly say MY GOD WOMAN GIVE ME SOME CREDIT! Like if I accidentally do something she SWEARS I did it on purpose and will NOT ACCEPT my apologies. She'll even go so far as to tell me that I am NOT sorry!

I dunno if you know this or not, but for a sensitive ENFP this drives me NUTS!!!

I guess that is an INTP thing? Yes? No?

 

[hotmale]

Just my 2 cents as I have 2 close friends who are INTP's -- 1 is much more touchy feely and expressive of their amicability towards me and the other is tougher cookie. Both can come out of nowhere with sudden rants or tangents about how they don't like me using a particular word or that I am being ________.

Both intellectualize a lot and seem to like my ENFP ability to follow and flow of conversation.

One INTP friend is a bit of a push-over and does way too much for acquaintances but is supremely generous with friends.

The other INTP is also wonderfully generous with friends and can be quite hospitable with random strangers (sometimes at the expense of the time and energy of other people who she 'volunteers' to help) -- but then she can be just plain MEAN!!! Mean and impossible to reason with!

She is just straight up harsh sometimes and comes to these snap judgements about my character and I have to jokingly say MY GOD WOMAN GIVE ME SOME CREDIT! Like if I accidentally do something she SWEARS I did it on purpose and will NOT ACCEPT my apologies. She'll even go so far as to tell me that I am NOT sorry!

I dunno if you know this or not, but for a sensitive ENFP this drives me NUTS!!!

I guess that is an INTP thing? Yes? No?

Sounds like an N thing. Every N I had to deal with occasionally likes to indulge in emotional bribery. Just don't fall for it.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Like today, I played almost the exact same "loosing" line in chess games against a friend, till I found an improvement that gave me equality or better (I was black). Others may have cared that they lost 3 or four games in a row, in almost exactly the same way, and I probably looked silly to my friend. But, I found a variation that gave equality (probably better). I had a gut feeling there was something there I was missing, and didn't mind loosing many chess games to find it.

I've played warcraft III most often recently, tho I've quitted it for now.

I too often decide *BEFORE* a game that I make it a test game, one where I learn about how a strategy works, not caring about the win that much. I of course hope that the strategy in question produces a winning result and in a way that proves it to work well. But I put most emphasis on testing and not caring.

Then with other games, I decide *BEFORE* the game that I WANT to win. I decide it before I see what opponents I get, or before I know anything about the type of game it will be.

SO when I want to win I decide it and keep it, and accept losses if they come. If I win a game that I didn't plan to win, I dont take credit for it.

 

[LordPwnage]

- Lazy and likes to work the least amount possible
- Negativistic and sees the glass half empty
- Unreliable. Holds word depending on self-interest/mood.
- Passive-Aggressive. Tends to value covert aggression and manipulation of people's thoughts instead of direct confrontation.
- Secretive and holds information to keep power and upper-hand
- Autocratic and does not consult others in decisions
- Pours cold water on people's enthusiasm and happiness, as any manifestation of positive emotion is seen as superfluous
- Overvalues negative feelings such as sadness and even assimilates the ability to have these feelings with intellectual depth
- Pedantic and fastidious about spelling, grammar and theoretical frameworks
- Disagreeable and cold attitude towards people
- Lack of realism and interest in subjects that hold no practical value and benefit
- Overly critical in a non-objective way. Does not establish criteria before criticism, but adapts criteria in function of possibility of criticism
- Disagreeable. Will say the opposite just to say the opposite. If this is pinpointed to them, will agree. If it is shown to them that they agree when it is pinpointed to them, will disagree.
- Tendency to believe in intellectual superiority over other human beings, despite any measure of the real world gains of this so called intelligence.
- Undervalues facts, measures and any real world element that might contradict an internal thought system
- Hides behind philosophy to diffuse contradiction of own ideas (i.e. "there is no such thing as objective truth", "everything is relative anyway", ...)
- Lack of awareness of social dynamics
- Gets stuck in thought and is bad at making decisions
- Poor at managing people
- Bad at managing own finances
- Does not act responsibly enough with family
- Overly sensitive self while being overly insensitive to other people
- In romantic relationships, the type willing to spend the least possible amount of time with partner
- Bad eating habits

C'mon, that just wasn't fair.

 

[MrFlaneur]

- Lazy and likes to work the least amount possible
- Negativistic and sees the glass half empty
- Unreliable. Holds word depending on self-interest/mood.
- Passive-Aggressive. Tends to value covert aggression and manipulation of people's thoughts instead of direct confrontation.
- Secretive and holds information to keep power and upper-hand
- Autocratic and does not consult others in decisions
- Pours cold water on people's enthusiasm and happiness, as any manifestation of positive emotion is seen as superfluous
- Overvalues negative feelings such as sadness and even assimilates the ability to have these feelings with intellectual depth
- Pedantic and fastidious about spelling, grammar and theoretical frameworks
- Disagreeable and cold attitude towards people
- Lack of realism and interest in subjects that hold no practical value and benefit
- Overly critical in a non-objective way. Does not establish criteria before criticism, but adapts criteria in function of possibility of criticism
- Disagreeable. Will say the opposite just to say the opposite. If this is pinpointed to them, will agree. If it is shown to them that they agree when it is pinpointed to them, will disagree.
- Tendency to believe in intellectual superiority over other human beings, despite any measure of the real world gains of this so called intelligence.
- Undervalues facts, measures and any real world element that might contradict an internal thought system
- Hides behind philosophy to diffuse contradiction of own ideas (i.e. "there is no such thing as objective truth", "everything is relative anyway", ...)
- Lack of awareness of social dynamics
- Gets stuck in thought and is bad at making decisions
- Poor at managing people
- Bad at managing own finances
- Does not act responsibly enough with family
- Overly sensitive self while being overly insensitive to other people
- In romantic relationships, the type willing to spend the least possible amount of time with partner
- Bad eating habits

genius - ill never have to visit typelogic again

 

[armstrongvk12]

- Lazy and likes to work the least amount possible
- Negativistic and sees the glass half empty
- Unreliable. Holds word depending on self-interest/mood.
- Passive-Aggressive. Tends to value covert aggression and manipulation of people's thoughts instead of direct confrontation.
- Secretive and holds information to keep power and upper-hand
- Autocratic and does not consult others in decisions
- Pours cold water on people's enthusiasm and happiness, as any manifestation of positive emotion is seen as superfluous
- Overvalues negative feelings such as sadness and even assimilates the ability to have these feelings with intellectual depth
- Pedantic and fastidious about spelling, grammar and theoretical frameworks
- Disagreeable and cold attitude towards people
- Lack of realism and interest in subjects that hold no practical value and benefit
- Overly critical in a non-objective way. Does not establish criteria before criticism, but adapts criteria in function of possibility of criticism
- Disagreeable. Will say the opposite just to say the opposite. If this is pinpointed to them, will agree. If it is shown to them that they agree when it is pinpointed to them, will disagree.
- Tendency to believe in intellectual superiority over other human beings, despite any measure of the real world gains of this so called intelligence.
- Undervalues facts, measures and any real world element that might contradict an internal thought system
- Hides behind philosophy to diffuse contradiction of own ideas (i.e. "there is no such thing as objective truth", "everything is relative anyway", ...)
- Lack of awareness of social dynamics
- Gets stuck in thought and is bad at making decisions
- Poor at managing people
- Bad at managing own finances
- Does not act responsibly enough with family
- Overly sensitive self while being overly insensitive to other people
- In romantic relationships, the type willing to spend the least possible amount of time with partner
- Bad eating habits

OMG....you must know my INTP ex-boyfriend!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I have known an INTP to do this because the alternative was to concede an argument, which he was constitutionally incapable of doing at the time.

In fairness, I think it's more of a maturity thing than a type thing.

Generally, even most unhealthy INTPs tend to be obessed with knowing the truth...sophisms tend to be rare..though their obsession with their inner system which often leads to neglect of the problems others propound makes them seem like they are equivocating to hide their ignorance, incompetence. When in reality they are trying to avoid being ignorant and incompetent (they are not concerned with whether or not others see them as ignorant or incompetent because they are too internally focused to be conscious of their image).

Usually this is a problem in communication which is a consequence of poorly employed extroverted function of the INTP.

INTPs tend not to have a problem conceding they're wrong because their approach is impersonal and they tend not to take external standards seriously..so being outdone tends to be taken lightly...

Though what they might do in such a case..is simply skirt the issue..trying to correct their position. Purposefully concealing their 'wrongness' tends to be rare.

Many think that Hegel and Heidegger only write in such complex jargon because they want to prevent others from knowing that their philosophy is rubbish. Yet the reality seems to be that they are just trying to work through their thoughts that are stuck too deeply down--and seem to lack the expositional merits.

 

[GreyDeath]

- Negativistic and sees the glass half empty

- Pedantic and fastidious about spelling, grammar and theoretical frameworks

Id say that personally as an INTP, I see the glass as half empty if someone has just drank half of a full glass, and half full if someone just filled an empty glass half way. Am I the only INTP that is obsessed with context?

And on grammar and spelling, spelling is minorly important when compared to grammar. Someone can still get your point if you misspell a word, but the grammar of a sentence can change the subtle meanings contained within and can cause a huge amount of confusion/misunderstanding. Bad grammar can cause someone to miss the point entirely; bad spelling cant (it is annoying at times though).

I wonder why I hear so much about INTPs and precision in spelling, grammar, and math. Im definitely an INTP and only correct minor spelling errors because I hate seeing those red lines under words in spellcheck. Also, I hate math for that very reason: its precision and exactness, I thought that was the reason INTPs don't hang out at IKEA getting all excited about the prospects of better organizing their rooms, I thought we didnt dig things having to be "just so" or there being only one way to do something (like only one spelling for a word).

 

[NoahFence]

Id say that personally as an INTP, I see the glass as half empty if someone has just drank half of a full glass, and half full if someone just filled an empty glass half way. Am I the only INTP that is obsessed with context?

A man holding a bloody knife...without context, our poor hibachi chef has become a murder suspect.

And on grammar and spelling, spelling is minorly important when compared to grammar. Someone can still get your point if you misspell a word, but the grammar of a sentence can change the subtle meanings contained within and can cause a huge amount of confusion/misunderstanding. Bad grammar can cause someone to miss the point entirely; bad spelling cant (it is annoying at times though).

A poorly spelled word can become another word, sometimes quite inappropriately. This is what makes tongue-twisters so much fun, right? "I sit upon a slitted sheet..."

I agree poor grammar is bad, but I hate Lazy Grammar so much more, when pronouns start replacing everything, and the resulting statement could be applied to any set of nouns you could choose, if you could actually choose a noun other than "thing".

I wonder why I hear so much about INTPs and precision in spelling, grammar, and math. Im definitely an INTP and only correct minor spelling errors because I hate seeing those red lines under words in spellcheck. Also, I hate math for that very reason: its precision and exactness, I thought that was the reason INTPs don't hang out at IKEA getting all excited about the prospects of better organizing their rooms, I thought we didnt dig things having to be "just so" or there being only one way to do something (like only one spelling for a word).

Rigid frameworks are not the same as limited frameworks...to me, the difference is shown in legos...they only fit together in certain ways, but you can use those simple connections to create an infinite variety (assuming infinite legos, of course, which is impossible due to their own tendencies of vanishing in violation of conservation of mass, but that's another topic). The spelling of words may not be fluid, but the meaning can be, and the underlying language is. If I said "I moused through the folder", I've just used "mouse" as a verb, which is not supposed to be legal, but I bet you understood the implied context of browsing files on a computer.

I revel in stretching into rigid yet open-ended frameworks. I like to see how the space gets filled.

 

[Ivy]

I agree poor grammar is bad, but I hate Lazy Grammar so much more, when pronouns start replacing everything, and the resulting statement could be applied to any set of nouns you could choose, if you could actually choose a noun other than "thing".

I'm sorry.

(also- it's "thingie")

 

[Seanan]

Id say that personally as an INTP, I see the glass as half empty if someone has just drank half of a full glass, and half full if someone just filled an empty glass half way. Am I the only INTP that is obsessed with context?

Yes, but perspective is still involved. I see them always full... air does fill space.

 

[Tallulah]

Id say that personally as an INTP, I see the glass as half empty if someone has just drank half of a full glass, and half full if someone just filled an empty glass half way. Am I the only INTP that is obsessed with context?

Ha! Awesome! I love distinctions like this. I do that, too. Trips you up on stuff like standardized tests, though. Too many options!

 

[GreyDeath]

Yes, but perspective is still involved. I see them always full... air does fill space.

Good point, I never thought about it that way.

What about in spaaaaace?

But really...I'm going to have to think about that one...damn that does make it hard to be pessimistic.

 

[Ivy]

Glass is a liquid

Therefore, a glass is always

full of its own self

 

[Totenkindly]

... Am I the only INTP that is obsessed with context?

No, context is completely crucial to proper understanding. It's a matter of how the pieces are positioned in relation to each other, not what the actual piece itself looks like on its own.

And on grammar and spelling, spelling is minorly important when compared to grammar. Someone can still get your point if you misspell a word, but the grammar of a sentence can change the subtle meanings contained within and can cause a huge amount of confusion/misunderstanding. Bad grammar can cause someone to miss the point entirely; bad spelling cant (it is annoying at times though).

I find bad spelling annoying and do correct it when I see it (just like I'd want to wipe off a dollop of ketchup on the end of someone's nose, rather than stare at it for the next 20 minutes of conversation), but yes, grammar is so much more important because it radically changes context and thus meaning.

I get so pissy when I'm discussing something with someone and they don't interpret my words in terms of context, or they paraphrase me in a way that might sound similar but changes the nuance of my comment.

Also, I hate math for that very reason: its precision and exactness

Math theory is interesting. Doing arithmetic can be very very boring unless you're in the mood to just do brainless but concretely defined work.

I thought we didnt dig things having to be "just so" or there being only one way to do something (like only one spelling for a word).

I only care about spelling if it changes the meaning. If you're just talking about british vs american spelling (for example, which doesn't change meaning), well, who cares?


....btw... cute haiku, Ivy.

 

[ygolo]

The "fullness" of the glass is most definitely defined by its context.

If it is being used as weight. It would make sense for it to be "filled" with something more dense than water.

If there is a stopper sitting on the watter to trigger other mechanisms, then it is precision that counts.

Also, why is it even necessarily a "good" thing to have the glass "full?"

Maybe it is better to have it "empty." A glass empty of water, and full of air is lighter, and much less likely to create a spill that needs to be cleaned up.

 

[NoahFence]

What if it's half full of some of that vile chalky crap you have to choke down before getting in The Probe down at Ultimate Humiliation Radiology? Then it is a good thing that it's half empty, and a terrible thing that it's half full. In fact it's kind of bad that it was ever full at all, and must now be emptied, as this implies there's something going wrong in your belly bad enough that you have to go put on the assless apron and parade through icy halls of arctic tile.