[NT] Who are more "robotic": INTJs or INTPs?

[Zarathustra]

So you're simply saying that Fluffy was going the direction you were hoping the discussion would go?

Well, in one sense, yes, but in another sense, not exactly.

I didn't want the thread to go in that specific direction, necessarily.

I just wanted, in general, to develop an intelligent discussion.

His post just happened to move it in that direction.

Don't I know it dear Z!

That's not where I was or am going. I need to remember that when I ask you pointed questions without preamble, you tend to assign me motives that I don't have.

So true on the assigning you motives... whether or not you have those that I see, that I still leave open-ended.



Regardless, it was not necessarily addressing motives I saw, so much as motives I didn't want developing.

 

[cascadeco]

[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]

I think this is a good point. I do not think Si is responsible for being "robotic"...I think T functions are. Si is actually a very personal function, and sometimes people mix it up with Fi because it's so subjective, and associates memories with feelings, etc.

I think that's what INTJs LOOK more robotic on the surface (you're seeing their T function in the aux position focused externally, and we tend to see extroverted functions more, even in introverts...which is why you also get that surface impression with ISTJs, possibly) ...but if you get to know the INTP, you get more and more into that Ti, which to me as an Fi type, seems very "dry."

& [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] -

I do agree that INTP / Ti on the inside is very 'dry' and internally, INTP's are more rigid and computer-like; and obviously dom-Ni is not. I also don't think dom-Si is, and don't know why dom-Si would be viewed in a light drastically different than dom-Ni.. at least in terms of this 'robotic' concept.

I simply think it's a very slanted discussion to keep it restricted to the internal process being what absolutely defines 'robotic-ness'. And to me it's relevant to bring ISTJ/ISTP in the discussion, and I don't understand why the logic would be different for ISTJ/ISTP than for INTJ/INTP.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Yes. But the cognitive processes produce the appearance imo. I think this has already been explained a bit, but I wanted to refine the concept.

Both robots and computers would operate on Ti it's true. Te gathers data and responds to the physical world, like a robot. Te organizes the environment and decides which actions are more logical and efficient.

Ne gathers data like all the internet users giving information to a computer, and a computer just stays in one place and thinks. Also a computer responds to people (Fe), while a robot is less interactive.

In general, of course. INTX's would be like a computer-robot hybrid, and atypical INTP's and INTJ's would be their own unique thing.

Still, the fact remains that regardless of my other cognative functions, my descision making remains true to a certain method that can be best explained as computer like. Where the descision making for INTJ's is largely influenced by a factor that can not be explained as such.

Hmm, I mean, just because a chicked appears similar to an eagle, doesn't mean it eats mice as well. Just because an INTJ appears robotic and that appearance is caused by his cognative functions, doesn't mean he operates like one. And even though an INTP might not appear like a computer at all, internally his congative processes still have a lot of similarities.

I understand where you're coming from, but this is basicly my take on it.

 

[Thalassa]

& [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] -

I do agree that INTP / Ti on the inside is very 'dry' and internally, INTP's are more rigid and computer-like; and obviously dom-Ni is not. I also don't think dom-Si is, and don't know why dom-Si would be viewed in a light drastically different than dom-Ni.. at least in terms of this 'robotic' concept.

I simply think it's a very slanted discussion to keep it restricted to the internal process being what absolutely defines 'robotic-ness'. And to me it's relevant to bring ISTJ/ISTP in the discussion, and I don't understand why the logic would be different for ISTJ/ISTP than for INTJ/INTP.

It's not. You see a touch more Se or Ne even in an IxTP, making them APPEAR EXTERNALLY SOFTER (P) ...same principle applies to Fs...like how IxFJs seem to be the "judgers" in terms of social norms or polite behavior or organizing the group...but you get to know an IxFP and prepare to see some personal moral judgements that may make your head spin.

It just depends probably on your own function order (like Te probably seems "harsher" to Fe types than it does to me, and Ti probably seems drier to me and other Fi types than it does to a Ti type, even an IxFJ with Ti) ...as well as if you are talking about the external appearance and how that person functions or judges or perceives internally.

 

[Zarathustra]

So, we're all supposed to agree that it's the dominant internal cog. process that defines 'robotic'? And that's why INTP IS more 'robotic' than INTJ?

External cog functions are also cognition, but we're supposed to agree that we're not supposed to be looking at the external to determine robotic-ness? Why?

But then there's a lack of consistency, because I don't think it's the dom-Si that makes the ISTJ robotic - in reality I think it's more the Te that defines the robotic-ness (ISFJ wouldn't be viewed as robotic). And incidentally, I'd put ISTJ as more 'robotic' before ISTP. So I do look to the external cog functions more than internal when assessing robotic-ness, and I did look through the whole thread.

Or is it instead the tertiary Si of INTP that makes them more robotic than INTJ's, and that way we can tie off the fact that both INTP's and ISTJ's are robotic? Still wouldn't solve for ISFJ's NOT being robotic, though....

I was going to respond to your post Cascadeco, but, yeah, Fluffywolf already covered everything I was thinking of saying.

The breaking mechanism that makes INTJ's less robotic in particular is their Ni, that defies any law a computer or robot would function by. And as the dominate function of a type does not conform to robot-like or computer-like standards, it stands to reason that a type with a dominate function that does in essence work like the rules a computer could function on is therefor more robotic.

Exactly.

Never did I talk in absolutes however, and have before mentioned to not take the simile too literal but approach it from a general perspective, and even mentioned there could obviously be exceptions, as well as Zarathustra said that enneagram could also be a major factor. But since Zarathustra came with the comparison of INTP's and INTJ's specifically, it stands to reason he means the MBTI differences between those two types on a general level, making it obvious that in this case this thread in particular points to the cognative process differences between those two types. Based on that, INTP's are the more robotic ones.

Exactly.

As for ISTP's and ISTJ's, I just made the remark that Si is not like Ni in that regard, and then the combination of Si+Te would quite possibly be generally speaking more robotic than Ti+Se. Also, I just mentioned ISTP's and ISTJ's because Riva asked if I thought what I said about INTP's and INTJ's would also hold true for ISTP's and ISTJ's, and I just made the point that I think it does not.

And I agree with this.

edit: The bolded part would also answer the first bit of [MENTION=5999]PeaceBaby[/MENTION]'s post above, I believe. xP

Haha, wow, he's even answering other peoples' questions for me.

I feel so... spoiled.

Also a computer responds to people (Fe), while a robot is less interactive.

& [MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] -

I do agree that INTP / Ti on the inside is very 'dry' and internally, INTP's are more rigid and computer-like; and obviously dom-Ni is not. I also don't think dom-Si is, and don't know why dom-Si would be viewed in a light drastically different than dom-Ni.. at least in terms of this 'robotic' concept.

I simply think it's a very slanted discussion to keep it restricted to the internal process being what absolutely defines 'robotic-ness'. And to me it's relevant to bring ISTJ/ISTP in the discussion, and I don't understand why the logic would be different for ISTJ/ISTP than for INTJ/INTP.

I think he's just saying that Si is more akin to how a "machine brain" would work than is Ni.

Frankly, I think it's an accurate statement.

Still, the fact remains that regardless of my other cognative functions, my descision making remains true to a certain method that can be best explained as computer like. Where the descision making for INTJ's is largely influenced by a factor that can not be explained as such.

This is exactly my take on it.

It's why I changed the OP to "this is not about appearance, this is about how they are (i.e., how does their mind actually function)".

 

[A window to the soul]

The term robotic means the unthinking functioning of a machine (by the standard definition).

A robot requires programming and commands from 'without' and functions without *any* original thought.

The terms robot and robotic do not describe INTP or INTJ.

 

[MacGuffin]

Using my old thread:

INTJ "The Killjoy"
Some theorists try to say the INTJ is the most imaginative of the NTs. What crack these theorists are smoking is unknown at this point. The words "playfully inquisitive" are never used by other NTs to describe INTJs. When not using their only mode of humor (sarcasm) the INTJ seems intent on taking the stick up their ass and ramming it up everyone else's ass. Fortunately most NTs know how to cover their asses. Watch it! There's one behind you right now!

INTP "The Whiner"
Everyone has problems. Most people attempt to rid themselves of those problems at some point. Not the INTP! That would remove the greatest pleasure the INTP has: bitching about their problems on the internet. God forbid the INTP ever actually does anything, just the mere fact they think they could do something is good enough. Little known fact: the "c" in INTPc stands for cheese, to go with the whine.

I'm going with INTJ (plus years of experience).

 

[cascadeco]

This is exactly my take on it.

It's why I changed to the OP to "this is not about appearance, this is about how they actually are (i.e., how does their mind actually function)".

I still think Te = part of how an INTJ's mind actually functions, even though it is an external manifestation of cognition and preference. Do you disagree?

Because I view Te as a very important aspect of the INTJ, and I place more emphasis on the external aspect/definition of 'robotic' than the internal, I voted INTJ.

 

[A window to the soul]

That was fun and easy. Gotta run.

 

[rav3n]

Neither are robotic. INTJs lean towards being E-mo and INTPs, calm.

 

[Zarathustra]

I still think Te = part of how an INTJ's mind actually functions, even though it is an external manifestation of cognition and preference. Do you disagree?

No, you're absolutely correct, it's just, the dominant makes up a larger part of who we are than the auxiliary.

I mean, if you believe Dario Nardi's research, it's a much larger part.

Because I view Te as a very important aspect of the INTJ, and I place more emphasis on the external aspect/definition of 'robotic' than the internal, I voted INTJ.

Wow... this is gunna be three times in one day... but I noticed this discussion proceeding along these lines, so I've got to say it...

In the parlance of Ken Wilber, we are having an internal (left) vs external (right) issue.

In his quadrant theory, he posits that there are four ways of looking at something:

- individual and internal
- individual and external
- collective and internal
- collective and external

It seems that people who are taking an internal perspective are saying that INTPs are more robotic.

And it seems that people who are taking an external persecptive are saying that INTJs are more robotic.

 

[Fluffywolf]

On one side are the people that look at the similarities between the descision making process of INTP's and INTJ's with computers/robots. And find that INTP's have many more similarities.

On the other side are the people that say the more you appear like a robot, the more you are like a robot. Meaning INTJ's take the crown.

Since obviously neither INTP and INTJ are in fact robots, both statements hold true. There is just a difference of semantics.

However, judging by OP post, it seemed clear to me that the discussion Zara intended was the first semantic. That was solved by my first post in this thread, further discussion was probably unneccesary. Minus the drama, the main discussion right now is which semantic people value more themselves. So the topic should now be:

What makes an INTJ/INTP more robotic in your opinion?
- Their cognative processes?
- Their appearance?

Pick one and get on with it.

 

[MacGuffin]

010101000110100001100101001000000110010001101001011100110110001101110101011100110111001101101001011011110110111000100000011011110110011000100000011000110110111101101101011100000111010101110100011001010111001001110011001000000111011001110011001011100010000001110010011011110110001001101111011101000111001100100000011010010111001100100000011010010110111001110100011001010111001001100101011100110111010001101001011011100110011100101110001000000010000001001111011011100110010100100000011011010110100101100111011010000111010000100000011011010110000101101011011001010010000001110100011010000110010101101101001000000111001101111001011011100110111101101110011110010110110101110011001011000010000001100010011101010111010000100000011101000110100001100101011110010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011011100110111101110100001011100010000000100000010000110110111101101101011100000111010101110100011001010111001001110011001000000010001001110100011010000110100101101110011010110010001000100000011010010110111000100000011000010010000001101100011011110110011101101001011000110110000101101100001000000110110101100001011011100110111001100101011100100010110000100000011000100111010101110100001000000110111101100110011101000110010101101110001000000110010001101111011011100010011101110100001000000010001001100100011011110010001000100000011000010110111001111001011101000110100001101001011011100110011100101110001000000010000001010010011011110110001001101111011101000111001100100000011001000110111101101110001001110111010000100000011000010110001101110100011101010110000101101100011011000111100100100000011010000110000101110110011001010010000001110100011011110010000000100010011101000110100001101001011011100110101100100010001000000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001000000111001001101111011000100110111101110100011100110010110000100000011000100111010101110100001000000111010001101000011001010111100100100000011000010111001001100101001000000111001001100101011100010111010101101001011100100110010101100100001000000111010001101111001000000010001001100100011011110010001000100000011100110110111101101101011001010111010001101000011010010110111001100111001011000010000001101111011101000110100001100101011100100111011101101001011100110110010100100000011101000110100001100101011110010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011000010110111000100000011010010110111001100001011011100110100101101101011000010111010001100101001000000110111101100010011010100110010101100011011101000010111000100000001000000101001101101001011011100110001101100101001000000111011101100101001000000110000101101100011011000010000001101011011011100110111101110111001000000100101001110011001000000110000101100011011101000111010101100001011011000110110001111001001000000010001001100100011011110010001000100000011011010110111101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110000101101110001000000101000001110011001011000010000001110100011010000110100101110011001000000110110101100001011010110110010101110011001000000111010001101000011001010010000001001001010011100101010001001010001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110010011011110110001001101111011101000010111000100000001000000100100101001110010101000101000001110011001000000110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100100000011000110110111101101101011100000111010101110100011001010111001000101110

 

[Zarathustra]

On one side are the people that look at the similarities between the descision making process of INTP's and INTJ's with computers/robots. And find that INTP's have many more similarities.

On the other side are the people that say the more you appear like a robot, the more you are like a robot. Meaning INTJ's take the crown.

Since obviously neither INTP and INTJ are in fact robots, both statements hold true. There is just a difference of semantics.

However, judging by OP post, it seemed clear to me that the discussion Zara intended was the first semantic. That was solved by my first post in this thread, further discussion was probably unneccesary. Minus the drama, the main discussion right now is which semantic people value more themselves. So the topic should now be:

What makes an INTJ/INTP more robotic in your opinion?
- Their cognative processes?
- Their appearance?

Pick one and get on with it.

Yes, you are right in that it completely depends on which way you're framing the issue, but the recognition of this fact is worthwhile (especially when you see how well it maps onto the Wilberian external vs internal model...).

 

[greenfairy]

It's why I changed the OP to "this is not about appearance, this is about how they are (i.e., how does their mind actually function)".

If you are talking only about internal operation, I would definitely have to agree INTP. However, when you say how they "are" this tends to imply both internal function and external behavior. Ti is more "robotic" than Ni. However, on the robotic scale:
Ti>Ni
Ne<Te
Si>Fi
Fe<Se

so just based on CF's alone they would be equal.

Ti+Ne is more like a computer with constantly incoming data, while Ni+Te is more like a system of input data and instructions.

But I think the word "robotic" necessarily implies something external because robots are designed to act. If you design a robot to think and not act, it is a computer. You can't really judge something to be like a robot based on internal function; unless you are simply referring to "follow orders." And we all know which of the two is better at that. Internally Ti+Ne is like a computer brain and Ni+Te is like a robot making decisions and organizing based on external truths.

 

[Fluffywolf]

010101000110100001100101001000000110010001101001011100110110001101110101011100110111001101101001011011110110111000100000011011110110011000100000011000110110111101101101011100000111010101110100011001010111001001110011001000000111011001110011001011100010000001110010011011110110001001101111011101000111001100100000011010010111001100100000011010010110111001110100011001010111001001100101011100110111010001101001011011100110011100101110001000000010000001001111011011100110010100100000011011010110100101100111011010000111010000100000011011010110000101101011011001010010000001110100011010000110010101101101001000000111001101111001011011100110111101101110011110010110110101110011001011000010000001100010011101010111010000100000011101000110100001100101011110010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011011100110111101110100001011100010000000100000010000110110111101101101011100000111010101110100011001010111001001110011001000000010001001110100011010000110100101101110011010110010001000100000011010010110111000100000011000010010000001101100011011110110011101101001011000110110000101101100001000000110110101100001011011100110111001100101011100100010110000100000011000100111010101110100001000000110111101100110011101000110010101101110001000000110010001101111011011100010011101110100001000000010001001100100011011110010001000100000011000010110111001111001011101000110100001101001011011100110011100101110001000000010000001010010011011110110001001101111011101000111001100100000011001000110111101101110001001110111010000100000011000010110001101110100011101010110000101101100011011000111100100100000011010000110000101110110011001010010000001110100011011110010000000100010011101000110100001101001011011100110101100100010001000000111010001101111001000000110001001100101001000000111001001101111011000100110111101110100011100110010110000100000011000100111010101110100001000000111010001101000011001010111100100100000011000010111001001100101001000000111001001100101011100010111010101101001011100100110010101100100001000000111010001101111001000000010001001100100011011110010001000100000011100110110111101101101011001010111010001101000011010010110111001100111001011000010000001101111011101000110100001100101011100100111011101101001011100110110010100100000011101000110100001100101011110010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011000010110111000100000011010010110111001100001011011100110100101101101011000010111010001100101001000000110111101100010011010100110010101100011011101000010111000100000001000000101001101101001011011100110001101100101001000000111011101100101001000000110000101101100011011000010000001101011011011100110111101110111001000000100101001110011001000000110000101100011011101000111010101100001011011000110110001111001001000000010001001100100011011110010001000100000011011010110111101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110000101101110001000000101000001110011001011000010000001110100011010000110100101110011001000000110110101100001011010110110010101110011001000000111010001101000011001010010000001001001010011100101010001001010001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110010011011110110001001101111011101000010111000100000001000000100100101001110010101000101000001110011001000000110000101110010011001010010000001110100011010000110010100100000011000110110111101101101011100000111010101110100011001010111001000101110

010100110110010101101101011000010110111001110100011010010110001101110011001011000010000001001100010011110100110000100001000011010000101000001101000010100100011101101111001000000110000101110111011000010111100100101110001000000011101000101000

 

[Red Herring]

Don't blame me, blame the forum's algorithm...

This is what the forum suggests at the foot of this thread:

 

[greenfairy]

No, you're absolutely correct, it's just, the dominant makes up a larger part of who we are than the auxiliary.

I mean, if you believe Dario Nardi's research, it's a much larger part.



Wow... this is gunna be three times in one day... but I noticed this discussion proceeding along these lines, so I've got to say it...

In the parlance of Ken Wilber, we are having an internal (left) vs external (right) issue.

In his quadrant theory, he posits that there are four ways of looking at something:

- individual and internal
- individual and external
- collective and internal
- collective and external

It seems that people who are taking an internal perspective are saying that INTPs are more robotic.

And it seems that people who are taking an external persecptive are saying the INTJs are more robotic.

My Ti likes this!

 

[MacGuffin]

010100110110010101101101011000010110111001110100011010010110001101110011001011000010000001001100010011110100110000100001000011010000101000001101000010100100011101101111001000000110000101110111011000010111100100101110001000000011101000101000

010101110110100001101111001000000110110101100001011001000110010100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110110001101111011100100110010000100000011011110110011000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110100101101110011101000110010101110010011011100110010101110100001111110011111100111111

 

[Zarathustra]

so just based on CF's alone they would be equal.

Not if you weight the functions with a coefficient for what % of cognition they tend to take up.

But I think the word "robotic" necessarily implies something external because robots are designed to act.

As you already said, it depends on how you frame it.

As Fluffywolf said, the intention of the OP was for the internal frame of reference.

However, it would not be accurate to say that I did not want to spur a discussion touching on the various frames of reference.