[INTP] Rant on INTPs

[Xander]

I dont think our interpretations of "dislike" were different. He took not liking to mean dislike/hate (I think he might have been exaggerating for effect) and I agree that dislike is close to hate, but "not liking" means that you do not like it; that there is no appeal in it for you, but also that there is not necessarily an aversion to it. If I were to say "I dont hate it" would that mean I love it or prefer it? No, it would mean an absence of hate/dislike. The same is true for "I dont like it" it doesnt mean that I hate it or dislike it, there is simply an absence of preference/like for it.

I have nothing against dogs (in fact I do like them now), simply put, if someone asked me at that time in the past "do you like dogs?" I would have replied "no." Meaning I wouldn't qualify my feelings for dogs as warm and fuzzy. Similarly, if someone followed the question with, "then do you dislike/hate them?" I would also reply "no." When I say "I dont like" I mean, it does nothing for me, it is the truest form of neutrality...I mean meh.

In short, a visual conception of all of this follows:

hate-----dislike-----neutral-----like-----love

hate and love are opposite at either end, like and dislike (antonyms) are opposite as well, only less extreme, and between them is neutrality...the absence of hate/love and dislike/like. When someone doesnt like something, they may very well also not dislike it (as is my case) and their feeling for it falls in the middle, neutral, an absence of positive or negative feelings for something.

Make sense?

INTP definition discussion

All I'm thinking is that the correct term to display a lack of positive emotion would be ambivalence. Well actually that's more a balance of positive and negative but I'd find it difficult to believe that unless you passionately dislike dogs that you'd be blind to their positive aspects and hence ambivalence would be the closest word for accuracy.

Also what came to mind is that if the other person is standing in the shade and you are standing in bright sunlight then to you the shade looks darker than it does to them where as to them the sunlight looks brighter than it does to you..

Do you see where I'm seeing a difference?

(This is usually why I list my type as 9 instead of INTP btw.. The obsession with balance over-rides the normal INTPness)

 

[Xander]

You got is all wrong, as usual.

I was just suggesting you to calm down, to go easy. Passive-aggressive tactics don't require laughters, I guessed you would figure it out.
The moment after you were criticized, you used your fiercest Ego defence mechanisms. And so did Tallulah.

"We INTPs are the best.... blah blah blah... the best... blah blah blah... our nuances are so great no one is able to understand them... blah blah blah... the best... blah blah blah... we are so intelligent... blah blah blah...."

How old are you?

It's amazing how you INTPs can sometimes be so stubborn and arrogant. It's perplexing, frankly. Indeed, you lacked social nuance, context, and I'm sure 90% of mankind will agree with me, but you don't mind. You have such a high idea of your own ego you don't want to realize how flawed you are.

I wanted to help you, you know. There was something rather obvious I tried to show you. I gained nothing in the process, it was pure benevolence.
But you took it as a personal offense!!!

Amazing!
Next time, I'll let you ramble on your own delirium.
If you can't accept foreign ideas, what others try to tell you, how can you improve?
Is it logical to force the world to embrace your own system, rather than trying to adapt to how the world really is?

Hmm this reminds me of someone pointing at a mirror and saying "You're wierd!!!".

You know ENTPs aren't too hot at social context right? It's kind of beneficial that as a type ENTPs like arguments seeing as they are capable of causing soo many.. kinda self pleasing in that sense .. which is nice an efficient

Oh and in reference to missing social context, what I usually find is that it's because they're looking a logical information and focusing on where the information takes them and the informations context. It takes a while before the idea of the context of who said it to sink in and even longer to get to why they may have said it.

I guess that's why I find it relaxing talking to NTs irl. I know that if I follow the information I'm likely to be heading in the right direction. SFs are soo much more difficult to follow (Not that I'm too hot on STs either based on the missus.)

 

[Mort Belfry]

Critical of others without any encouragement to balance

That's the best thing about us.

 

[GreyDeath]

You got is all wrong, as usual.

I was just suggesting you to calm down, to go easy. Passive-aggressive tactics don't require laughters, I guessed you would figure it out.
The moment after you were criticized, you used your fiercest Ego defence mechanisms. And so did Tallulah.

"We INTPs are the best.... blah blah blah... the best... blah blah blah... our nuances are so great no one is able to understand them... blah blah blah... the best... blah blah blah... we are so intelligent... blah blah blah...."

How old are you?

It's amazing how you INTPs can sometimes be so stubborn and arrogant. It's perplexing, frankly. Indeed, you lacked social nuance, context, and I'm sure 90% of mankind will agree with me, but you don't mind. You have such a high idea of your own ego you don't want to realize how flawed you are.

I wanted to help you, you know. There was something rather obvious I tried to show you. I gained nothing in the process, it was pure benevolence.
But you took it as a personal offense!!!

Amazing!
Next time, I'll let you ramble on your own delirium.
If you can't accept foreign ideas, what others try to tell you, how can you improve?
Is it logical to force the world to embrace your own system, rather than trying to adapt to how the world really is?

Blackmail, I wasn't mad, just annoyed that instead of continuing a discussion, you chose passive aggressive tactics, and I wasn't laughing, you posted the " " thing in response.

I'm not following your attacks on me, at what point did I use a "ego defense mechanism" and state that INTPs are the best blah blah blah, etc?

I wont pretend to understand ENTP or whatever type you are, but someone mentioned in a previous post that you like to be argumentative, maybe its your personality type, maybe its just you, but at this point Im not seeing discussion, all I'm seeing is baseless attacks against me. You claim Im being arrogant, stubborn, and defensive; that I "lacked social nuance and context," and that you wanted to show me something obvious, but at no point have you backed any of this up.

I will accept foreign ideas if their rationality can be explained to me, Ive explained the rational of my view in detail, and you have not explained how Im wrong, you have simply stated that I am with no supporting evidence.

Is it logical to force the world to embrace your own system, rather than trying to adapt to how the world really is?

Tell that to Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Russell Means, Cesar Chavez.

I dont pretend that this discussion is anywhere at all close to the issues that these individuals faced and the social change they prompted, but you should still see my point. The answer to your question on whether is is logical depends severely on the context .

 

[GreyDeath]

All I'm thinking is that the correct term to display a lack of positive emotion would be ambivalence. Well actually that's more a balance of positive and negative but I'd find it difficult to believe that unless you passionately dislike dogs that you'd be blind to their positive aspects and hence ambivalence would be the closest word for accuracy.

Exactly, short version of my feelings for dogs would be ambivalent, not dislike. But since ambivalence is the lack of both positive or negative emotions for something, wouldn't stating that you do not like something imply that you are ambivalent towards it since you did not expressly state that you dislike it?

How many people, in regular causal conversation, would state "I'm ambivalent towards dogs." ?

Also, I think meh is the simplest expression of ambivalence.

 

[Totenkindly]

...I told him that I didn't like dogs (he's a dog person). A few months later, it came up in conversation with a coworker and he claimed that I "hated dogs." I tried to explain that its that I didn't like dogs, not that I hated dogs.

Grrrr.... :steam:

yeah. Pissy. That's a more blatant example, but yes.

He said its the same thing, of course its not, but he wouldn't budge.

Why can't they [care to] see the difference??? it's so obvious!

Could me saying "I don't dislike dogs" mean the same as I love dogs?

The first implies a neutral feeling -- an absence of negative but no presence of positive. The latter is glowingly positive.

[And... I like my dogs medium-rare.]

Today's rants on INTPs:

Rants on ENTPS:
- Often feigns stupidity/confusion just to stir things up, when the answers are already clear.
- Can't just stick firm with a position.
- Likes dogs.

I agree with your original assessment--in the context of the discussion, the person should have pressed further if he thought you seriously hated dogs. I can certainly tell the difference between dislike and outright hate. If you didn't say "hate," he shouldn't have represented your viewpoint as such.

I don't see the original mistake as bad. Misinterpretation happens, no biggie. It was the unwillingness to shift position once a correction was offered that annoys me.

I definitely find the negative easier than the positive. Even though it really is irrational, it FEELS more rational to think negatively, b/c you fool yourself into thinking you're planning for every eventuality. It makes me act less, though, b/c I feel like I've already thought things out and there's no point in trying.

It's not irrational. One of our strongest skills is critical analysis which includes finding flaws. That will become all you see if that's all you choose to focus on, however.

QFT.

Yes, the negativity is "critical thinking." It looks at the system and declares what is out of whack. There's usually not a reason to declare what is working, it's already been assumed as the norm; only the negatives need to be fixed to restore balance.

But taken to an extreme, yes, it can lead to negative thinking and depression and feelings of futility, as well as social ostracism. Sometimes it helps if you step back and create a list of the positives, to stack up against the negatives.

<in refer to Blackmail!'s comments>
Hmm this reminds me of someone pointing at a mirror and saying "You're wierd!!!".

You know ENTPs aren't too hot at social context right?

I don't think I even took it that seriously. From over here, it just looks like he is mucking about trying to cause a stir.

But maybe that is my personal misunderstanding of ENTPs. Do you think he's actually serious, or is he just trying to toy and tinker with our heads and sensibilities?

Obie and I got into spats just like this, and I never really understood why -- it's not like we both can't follow what each other is saying.

 

[GreyDeath]

Jennifer,

I cant tell for sure, but It seems that maybe your on the same page as me on this one.

If thats the case, color me relieved that I'm not the only one that sees it this way.

The first implies a neutral feeling -- an absence of negative but no presence of positive. The latter is glowingly positive.

And I'd say it works the other way round as well:
"I dont like" implies a neutral feeling -- an absence of positive but no presence of negative. Hate is glowingly negative.

I don't see the original mistake as bad. Misinterpretation happens, no biggie. It was the unwillingness to shift position once a correction was offered that annoys me.

Exactly, he held his position, claiming that he better knew what I meant and would not allow the possibility that his jump to that conclusion (hate) was unsupported and wrong.

 

[Xander]

Exactly, short version of my feelings for dogs would be ambivalent, not dislike. But since ambivalence is the lack of both positive or negative emotions for something, wouldn't stating that you do not like something imply that you are ambivalent towards it since you did not expressly state that you dislike it?

How many people, in regular causal conversation, would state "I'm ambivalent towards dogs." ?

Also, I think meh is the simplest expression of ambivalence.

Oh dear Reminds me of Crocodile Dundee "That's not a knife..."

GD, you said you disliked dogs. Like it or not dislike is used for disapproval, ie it's negative. Darkness never over-rides light but it is the absence of it. What you are effectively saying is that because you didn't expressly state that you were negative towards dogs that it should not be read as such.. isn't that kind of against the whole intuitive thing?

Anyhow if people were truly accurate in speech they'd rarely utter a word.

Perhaps if you had said two things, one slanted negatively and one positively, then you would be safer in having defined your position with more accuracy?

(Note:- Most people won't hear the balance just the one they agree with or disagree with depending on their desires.)

 

[Totenkindly]

Exactly, he held his position, claiming that he better knew what I meant and would not allow the possibility that his jump to that conclusion (hate) was unsupported and wrong.

Bolded -- yes, that's what sends me into a piss-tizzy.

I listen when others edit what they say, and try to at least "test it" if not completely reincorporate their revisions. This crap when I clarify what I meant, and I'm told they know better than me what I'm thinking...?

What on earth is that?

Yes, I think I agreed (just skimming through) with the gist of all your recent posts... including your responses to Blackmail. i probably would have written them if I had been in your situation.

Maybe a thread exploring the ENTP vs INTP dynamic would be good? It usually consists of the ENTP trying to spin the room around and attack things from all sides, rather like a hurricane, while the INTP sits in the middle and clings to the best "logical conclusion" they've discovered.

Xander, you have a point in that communication works not by standardized rules but by adjusting for mistakes in understanding. GD's lexicon was very clear to him, the other guy just happened to work with a different rulebook. Fine -- depending on the rules, either could be "wrong." I happen to work like GD does, but I've learned that I need to adjust sometimes for other people just so my true intentions will be clear; they might not pick up on the nuances that are so purposeful to me.

[This nuance thing is why INTPs make good linguists, btw. And, if skilled in the culinary arts, good linguini too.]

However, GD tried to adjust his answer later, and his friend refused to accept it; even with thinking he was right, GD was still flexing and clarifying himself for the other guy's sake... and the other guy was the stick in the mud. Not him. THAT's what's annoying when dealing with unnuanced people.

 

[GreyDeath]

Bolded -- yes, that's what sends me into a piss-tizzy.

I listen when others edit what they say, and try to at least "test it" if not completely reincorporate their revisions. This crap when I clarify what I meant, and I'm told they know better than me what I'm thinking...?

What on earth is that?

Yes, I think I agreed (just skimming through) with the gist of all your recent posts... including your responses to Blackmail. i probably would have written them if I had been in your situation.

Maybe a thread exploring the ENTP vs INTP dynamic would be good? It usually consists of the ENTP trying to spin the room around and attack things from all sides, rather like a hurricane, while the INTP sits in the middle and clings to the best "logical conclusion" they've discovered.

Xander, you have a point in that communication works not by standardized rules but by adjusting for mistakes in understanding. GD's lexicon was very clear to him, the other guy just happened to work with a different rulebook. Fine -- depending on the rules, either could be "wrong." I happen to work like GD does, but I've learned that I need to adjust sometimes for other people just so my true intentions will be clear; they might not pick up on the nuances that are so purposeful to me.

[This nuance thing is why INTPs make good linguists, btw. And, if skilled in the culinary arts, good linguini too.]

However, GD tried to adjust his answer later, and his friend refused to accept it; even with thinking he was right, GD was still flexing and clarifying himself for the other guy's sake... and the other guy was the stick in the mud. Not him. THAT's what's annoying when dealing with unnuanced people.

Thank you! Thats exactly what I'm getting at!

and

Xander, Your right in your assessment if I had actually stated that I "dislike dogs", but I think you might be remembering wrong. I actually stated this:

I remember that a while back I was having the cats vs dogs discussion with a friend and I told him that I didn't like dogs (he's a dog person). A few months later, it came up in conversation with a coworker and he claimed that I "hated dogs." I tried to explain that its that I didn't like dogs, not that I hated dogs.

"I don't like" is different from "I dislike"

Anyhow if people were truly accurate in speech they'd rarely utter a word.

Your also right that if we all worried about precision when we speak, no one would ever talk, but again, I refer to Jennifer's post:

However, GD tried to adjust his answer later, and his friend refused to accept it; even with thinking he was right, GD was still flexing and clarifying himself for the other guy's sake... and the other guy was the stick in the mud. Not him. THAT's what's annoying when dealing with unnuanced people.

isn't that kind of against the whole intuitive thing?

Im not sure if nuances go against the typical INTP approach. I would definitely say that I am not obsessed with nuances, but when I take in information from the external world intuitively (especially with people for some reason), I pick up on very subtle nuances of their speech, expressions, body language, etc. and can tell if they are putting me on, lying to me, and generally sense their true motives/emotions, etc. I think, for me personally, I pick up on some nuances intuitively.

I remember a long time ago, I had just finished playing a show in downtown El Paso , and was hanging out outside of the club with my girlfriend and I saw a guy across the street, about 30-50 yards away, and I got a bad feeing about him just by looking at him, so I put my girlfriend behind me. The guy proceeded to walk right up to me and her (we were standing outside with about 15 other people, he ignored all of them), looked right through me at her, and start cussing and threatening her (he was crazy, pretty obvious once he started talking), and then walked off.

I dont know what I picked up on, but I imagine there were subtle nuances to his walk, look, etc, that I caught intuitively. But then, who knows, maybe its something else.

 

[Blackmail!]

Blackmail, I wasn't mad, just annoyed that instead of continuing a discussion, you chose passive aggressive tactics, and I wasn't laughing, you posted the " " thing in response.

Again, you are completely wrong. I wasn't "passive-aggressive" at all, but you were, somehow.
I did not "attack" you, I don't even know you, so why should I?

I just told you what I thought, but the response you made was out of proportion, so I suggested you to relax, to calm down.

I'm not following your attacks on me, at what point did I use a "ego defense mechanism" and state that INTPs are the best blah blah blah, etc?

1) You stubbornly refused to consider the tiny possibility you may be wrong, that something in your own reasoning may be flawed.

2) You considered this tiny possibility as a personal attack.

3) You refused to discuss it.

4) And while it's true you did not state that "INTPs are the best... blah blah blah", it was Tallulah's primary reaction.

---

Your retaliations and aggressivity are disproportionate.

Again, here is my point. Somebody asks you if you like dogs. Saying just "No", is a blunt negative statement, and should be interpreted as such.
Again, you used another flawed example:

"Could me saying "I don't dislike dogs" mean the same as I love dogs?"

Are you aware you were using the classic form of a Litotes? Do you know what this is? So here, the answer is YES: "I don't dislike dogs"="I love dogs".
That's a figure of speech, that's verbal nuances, that's everyday life conversations.

You're free to invent your own language, your own definitions, to justify (even "logically") your own sense of subjectivity. But don't complain if later, you're not very well understood.

 

[digesthisickness]

ENTPs like to argue. it's true. but NO damn ENTP gives a shit about any argument, especially one this stupid for this long.

 

[Oberon]

ENTPs like to argue. it's true. but NO damn ENTP gives a shit about any argument, especially one this stupid for this long.

di, you're back.

I'm glad.

 

[miss fortune]

Rants on ENTPS:
- Often feigns stupidity/confusion just to stir things up, when the answers are already clear.
- Can't just stick firm with a position.
- Likes dogs.

oh- damn- that actually describes ME

On INTPs- they're so damned quiet that I feel like I have to keep talking around them to make sure that neither of us are bored

oh- and they're good at insulting people!

 

[Seanan]

dislike = a feeling of aversion or disapproval

Re bolded... there's a filtering value system going on there and that could be the reason for the misunderstanding.

 

[Totenkindly]

ENTPs like to argue. it's true. but NO damn ENTP gives a shit about any argument, especially one this stupid for this long.

bwa ha ha ha! Perfect timing...!

Are you aware you were using the classic form of a Litotes? Do you know what this is? So here, the answer is YES: "I don't dislike dogs"="I love dogs".
That's a figure of speech, that's verbal nuances, that's everyday life conversations.

You're free to invent your own language, your own definitions, to justify (even "logically") your own sense of subjectivity. But don't complain if later, you're not very well understood.

Exactly -- which we already agreed upon, oh, two hours ago? (He clearly stated that he prefers his rules, he gets irked when others have a different style, but described how he changed them to accommodate someone who didn't share them.)

So why are you still arguing the point? Did we miss something here?

In any case, this is pretty fascinating. Because you seem sincere in your stance in the last post... so I'm inclined to chalk this up as a "perception" issue based on personality and am trying to figure it out so I can grasp it finally.

... when I take in information from the external world intuitively (especially with people for some reason), I pick up on very subtle nuances of their speech, expressions, body language, etc. and can tell if they are putting me on, lying to me, and generally sense their true motives/emotions, etc. I think, for me personally, I pick up on some nuances intuitively.

Very well stated.

A situation (or argument, or whatever else) is like a complex mobile, full of moving parts all going in different directions and speeds and weights and colors and sizes.

When the situation is "right," the entire system is functioning smoothly. Everything is in the right relationship to everything else.

When the nuances aren't right, the whole thing is out of alignment and it's quite obvious that something isn't matching up. The system flounders. It tells us something is WRONG.

I remember a long time ago, I had just finished playing a show in downtown El Paso , and was hanging out outside of the club with my girlfriend and I saw a guy across the street, about 30-50 yards away, and I got a bad feeing about him just by looking at him, so I put my girlfriend behind me. The guy proceeded to walk right up to me and her (we were standing outside with about 15 other people, he ignored all of them), looked right through me at her, and start cussing and threatening her (he was crazy, pretty obvious once he started talking), and then walked off.

I dont know what I picked up on, but I imagine there were subtle nuances to his walk, look, etc, that I caught intuitively. But then, who knows, maybe its something else.

Could have been anything. But the nuances were not adding up. And you knew it. Sort of like Gavin de Becker's ancedotes. (He's a security expert, internationally, and believes we all have some degree of intuitive sense of when something isn't right... mostly because of little details being off that we haven't yet consciously become aware of.)

We knew a married couple where the husband was behaving oddly, often staying out alone until 4am in the morning. He claimed he wasn't having an affair, and everyone (including his wife) wanted to believe him, but I knew he was full of shit. His story didn't mesh, the nuances were off, it just wasn't how people behaved... unless they were cheating. It was so obvious to me, even though I had no actual evidence of his cheating. But I didn't need it.

And yes, he left her within a few months for another woman (the one he had been meeting) and they got divorced.

 

[digesthisickness]

di, you're back.

I'm glad.

how glad are you?

 

[GreyDeath]

Again, you are completely wrong. I wasn't "passive-aggressive" at all, but you were, somehow.

I think "completely wrong" might be an exaggeration.

Today's rants on INTPs:

-Lack of verbal nuances, especially when they involve a social context
-Tendency to blame others for their own mistakes
-So concerned about their own self, they could forget to see the obvious

This is what I was referring to when I said you were being passive aggressive. How specifically was I passive aggressive? Later you said I was outright aggressive...that may be true, but it was unintentional.

1) You stubbornly refused to consider the tiny possibility you may be wrong, that something in your own reasoning may be flawed.

2) You considered this tiny possibility as a personal attack.

3) You refused to discuss it.

4) And while it's true you did not state that "INTPs are the best... blah blah blah", it was Tallulah's primary reaction.

1. I'm not saying that I'm necessarily not wrong ( i never did), just that He was wrong to express my stated ambivalence (at least that was my intended statement) as dislike or hatred.

2. I didn't take that as a personal attack, I took the calling me stubborn and arrogant, and stating that I was rambling on in my own delirium offensive.

3. How did I refuse to discuss it? If I remember correctly, I continued to discuss and support my point of view while you chose the route of posting the passive aggressive quote above, and began calling me arrogant and delirious instead of discussing or offering counter points.

4. Thank you for clearing that one up.

Your retaliations and aggressivity are disproportionate.

Im sorry if I appeared retaliatory, I get passionate when I discuss things, and I certainly didnt intend to be aggressive, I just require that something be fully discussed, I get frustrated when discussion breaks down into insults (yes being called arrogant and delirious are insulting if you don't back up what ways I am being arrogant and delirious).

Again, here is my point. Somebody asks you if you like dogs. Saying just "No", is a blunt negative statement, and should be interpreted as such.
Again, you used another flawed example:

"Could me saying "I don't dislike dogs" mean the same as I love dogs?"

Are you aware you were using the classic form of a Litotes? Do you know what this is? So here, the answer is YES: "I don't dislike dogs"="I love dogs".
That's a figure of speech, that's verbal nuances, that's everyday life conversations.

As far as I can figure, you have to use Litotes intentionally, much like sarcasm. I will admit that I can see how someone could misinterpret my statement as a form of Litotes just as someone can misinterpret sarcasm.
But when the individual that made the statement explains that the other misunderstood their meaning/intention, should that other person not accept the explanation?

You're free to invent your own language, your own definitions, to justify (even "logically") your own sense of subjectivity. But don't complain if later, you're not very well understood.

In fairness, I think most people do this to a degree in everyday conversation. Also, cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic differences will play a role.
I'll complain, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if someone misinterprets what I'm saying.
Doesn't that happen frequently to most of us though?

Either way, Blackmail!, thank you, this is all I wanted, an actual explanation of your view.

 

[GreyDeath]

ENTPs like to argue. it's true. but NO damn ENTP gives a shit about any argument, especially one this stupid for this long.

Awesome, its funny how, I know its a stupid argument (discussion), but I still feel the need to see it through somehow. Maybe I have got ENTP in my INTP.

When the nuances aren't right, the whole thing is out of alignment and it's quite obvious that something isn't matching up. The system flounders. It tells us something is WRONG.

Could have been anything. But the nuances were not adding up. And you knew it. Sort of like Gavin de Becker's ancedotes. (He's a security expert, internationally, and believes we all have some degree of intuitive sense of when something isn't right... mostly because of little details being off that we haven't yet consciously become aware of.)

We knew a married couple where the husband was behaving oddly, often staying out alone until 4am in the morning. He claimed he wasn't having an affair, and everyone (including his wife) wanted to believe him, but I knew he was full of shit. His story didn't mesh, the nuances were off, it just wasn't how people behaved... unless they were cheating. It was so obvious to me, even though I had no actual evidence of his cheating. But I didn't need it.

And yes, he left her within a few months for another woman (the one he had been meeting) and they got divorced.

Is this a NT thing universally, or is it part of the IN thing, having their N focussed externally?

It would be fascinating to be able to consciously grasp all of the nuances that are out of wack in a given situation...
or would it be overwhelming...

 

[digesthisickness]

Awesome, its funny how, I know its a stupid argument (discussion), but I still feel the need to see it through somehow. Maybe I have got ENTP in my INTP.

how did you come to the conclusion that you must have ENTP in your INTP because you won't let this go?

because someone who says they're ENTP won't let it go either?

i just said no ENTP would bother with this. there are way too many other topics and people to argue about and with to stay this focused on something this silly for this long. the only type who will are the ones who just want the last word no matter what OR the type who think their own perception is the right one and if they keep going on and on (basically bullying by not shutting the fuck up about it) the other person will give in. and, actually think the other person giving up means they DID win.

sorry, but ENTPs encourage freedom of thought even if it's someone else's. the arguing comes in to learn, to get to a truth, not to force your opponent to see you're right no matter what.

to go on and on as if you're the only one who sees some magical light is ridiculous. especially when dealing with how SOMEONE ELSE SEES SOMETHING. how ridiculous is that. "you aren't right because i said so and i know how you should think and how everyone else thinks about how you think."

pointless and frankly rude and self-righteous as hell of him, whatever he is.