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

[Ginkgo]

The machines of the present are IST, but the machines of the future will be INT. Artificial intelligence could, perhaps even one day be transerred into the human body, making our intelligence programmable.

 

[Such Irony]

I vote INTP due to the functions. The first cognitive function that comes to mind when I think robot is Ti, which is INTPs dominant. How do you make a robot with Ni? Maybe one day we will but I don't we're quite there yet technologically.

 

[Zarathustra]

I have never met a robotic INTJ, but I have met INTPs who seem a hundred times more robotic if you don't know them (needless to say I do, and I know first hand they're not robotic, but their emotions are carefully buried, like a mine). INTJs I've known always have intense, fiery emotions boiling just beneath the surface. Immature INTJs who want to appear robotic often deny their emotions so vehemently you can only smile knowingly and pat their fluffy little heads.

+1

Poor INTJs talk like robots, act like robots, treat you like robots, care about you as much as robots do, and just like robots, lack the humour detector and auto-irony module, yet, suprisingly, no one seems to express the will to fathom their rich inner emotional realms, those which exist only in reference to their own well being.

Yes, Zarathustra, I completely agree with you. INTPs are more rational, more self-critical, they more easily detach themselves from the constraints of their feelings when assessing a problem and are thus more objective when critical thinking is concerned, hence, "more robotic on the inside."

Unlike INTJs, who, in addition, don't poses their innate aversion towards overreaching conclusions, mysticism and similar regressive inhibitions, INTPs are lucky they don't have to cross that egoistic emotional barrier in their goal of distilling knowledge into truth.

Excluding the objective rationality of the INTPs, INTJs are the robots in all other aspects - they are the cold, selfish machines efficiently executing complex tasks with their auto-destruct sequences overriden.

^ This is mostly a bunch of nonsense.

^ Hehe, but this was actually pretty good.

We are not defining the term, because to define it would be to answer the question and end the thread. It is only because the term is understood subjectively by those who answer that the question can even muster the appearance of being meaningful. As you can see in post #12, Zarathustra is somewhat aware of it, too.

Somewhat?

If I were at a green level of consciousness, I would agree that it's all just subjective yada yada yada...

But, being at the yellow/turquoise level, I'm willing to say that some definitions are better than others, so it's not completely subjective.

Assuming all come to the same conclusion based on the same initial parameters, which I still bet ends much like this thread without an objective definition.

The point was never to come to an objective definition of what it means to be robotic.

It was to come to a better understanding of INTJs and INTPs (among a number of other things).

Whether or not someone does is not the thread's fault; the arguments I wanted have been fleshed out in the thread.

Thus the covert war of Ti vs Ni continues................................

*chortles*

 

[highlander]

Are we referring to analytic as robotic? I see a robot as something that is programmed to do certain things...definately not a P trait. I would say its more a J trait because they are more stuck on what they believe and what they believe is how they are programmed. Its like everything get analysed through there vision(be it Si or Ni) and a conclusion is made...that conclusion is global, not personal opinion.

INTJs look more robotic just because of that walk and how they look at you and stuff like that. INTPs think more like robots though

 

[Nicodemus]

Somewhat?

If I were at a green level of consciousness, I would agree that it's all just subjective yada yada yada...

But, being at the yellow/turquoise level, I'm willing to say that some definitions are better than others, so it's not completely subjective.

You seem to be only somewhat aware of the fact that your thread hinges on the definition of 'robotic' remaining 'open-ended'; for if it were clear that you mean 'often thinking in logical patterns, aiming for consistency, bla', most people would jump to Ti as a match and your thread became a matter of simple concept allocation. By the way, many, many threads on this forum suffer - or, rather, benefit - from the same problem. Remember the Best King thread?

 

[Zarathustra]

You seem to be only somewhat aware of the fact that your thread hinges on the definition of 'robotic' remaining 'open-ended'; for if it were clear that you mean 'often thinking in logical patterns, aiming for consistency, bla', most people would jump to Ti as a match and your thread became a matter of simple concept allocation. By the way, many, many threads on this forum suffer - or, rather, benefit - from the same problem. Remember the Best King thread?

Yes, I know, I'm just wondering why it is that "somewhat" comes into play.

I'd say I'm more than well aware of it.

I just don't choose to stop there.

 

[Nicodemus]

Yes, I know, I'm just wondering why it is that "somewhat" comes into play.

I'd say I'm more than well aware of it.

I just don't choose to stop there.

Because a) your post (#12) only somewhat shows it, and b) there would have been better ways to achieve whatever you are trying to achieve here with a thread less circular.

 

[111]

^ This is mostly a bunch of nonsense.

What is it? The things that reek of truth are to much for you? You need something irrational, like the illusion that your egocentric INTJ emotionality is a virtue towards which we should strive, to grasp onto? Your unwarranted, idiotic arrogance that you have been flashing from the very start is nonsensical.

And we have the right answer.
Don't ever say I hate INTPs, in general, people.

Is this a poll or an exam? Are you expecting opinions or waiting for the right answer? How is this supposed to convince anyone that your intentions are benevolent, that you are not using robotic in a deprecating manner and that you're not here to gloat at someones supposed ignorance?

INTJs care too much about themselves to be considered as objective as INTPs are. Ni-Fi is prohibiting you from being truly rational, truly logical, truly robotic... It's obvious that this inversion is not the thing you had in mind when starting this thread, but the truth is as cold, as unpleasant, and as beautiful as usual.

 

[INTP]

Hmm, how does this description of INTP Si strike you?

INTP Si = I'm objective and logical, therefore I am open-minded. If someone disagrees with me, that doesn't only mean that they're wrong, but they're close-minded for not agreeing with me.​

I think that applies to some INTPs, the thing with tert Si is to realize the subjectivity of it or it will distort your thinking like your example shows. No one is objective and Si meaning that your sense perceptions go through abstractive filter that makes it highly subuective. But since people have hard time seeing that tert is mainly playing tricks on us, feeling like we handle it and control it consciously, but in reality its more often controlled by shadow and its contents are mixed with complexes and other functions, we often arent able to see tert properly.

Why?

 

[uumlau]

I think that applies to some INTPs, the thing with tert Si is to realize the subjectivity of it or it will distort your thinking like your example shows. No one is objective and Si meaning that your sense perceptions go through abstractive filter that makes it highly subuective. But since people have hard time seeing that tert is mainly playing tricks on us, feeling like we handle it and control it consciously, but in reality its more often controlled by shadow and its contents are mixed with complexes and other functions, we often arent able to see tert properly.

Why?

Just pointing out the symmetric observation. Neither argument is particularly compelling, except insofar as tert (and inf) are somewhat useful for pointing out blind spots, but the relationship to "open-mindedness" per se is a bit of a stretch. The tert doesn't make one feel or think that one is open-minded or that it is good to be so, but rather points out those areas where, no matter how open minded one really is, one doesn't see the blind spots. Other people upon encountering those blind spots might make an observation of close-mindedness or stubbornness.

W/r to "open mindedness" in general, I have found that regardless of type, those who believe that they themselves are open-minded and chide others for being close-minded tend to bring up the topic on precisely those matters about which they themselves are quite stubbornly resistant to changing their own opinions, and are quite unaware of the unintended irony of their assertions. It's definitely a human foible, kind of like the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), where those who are competent tend to underestimate their competence, while those who are incompetent tend to overestimate their competence. Similarly, those who are close-minded tend to overestimate their open-mindedness, while those who are truly open-minded tend to worry whether they're being open-minded enough.

 

[Coriolis]

INTJs care too much about themselves to be considered as objective as INTPs are. Ni-Fi is prohibiting you from being truly rational, truly logical, truly robotic... It's obvious that this inversion is not the thing you had in mind when starting this thread, but the truth is as cold, as unpleasant, and as beautiful as usual.

INTJ and INTP both care, but care differently about different things. What may appear as an INTJ's "personal crusade" is usually something that improves a situation for everyone, sometimes even at the expense of themselves. This will be much more visible than how INTPs care about something because INTJs place more value on acting in the outside world. INTPs will care just as much, but be satisfiied with establishing "the truth" as a concept, something far less visible to the casual observer.

Thinking tells you what something is
Feeling tells you what something is worth
Te = "someone told its a virtue"(what open mindedness is) Fi: "because i feel i am the best, i have to be open minded"(what i am worth)

Stop at the highlighted, and I will agree with you. An INTJ decides what something is by looking at external reality (Te), and decides what it is worth by looking at internal values and beliefs (Fi). INTP does more of the reverse, having the same functions but oppositely oriented. Yes, INTJs often feel driven to be knowledgeable, competent, perhaps even "the best", but not because anyone tells us this. We also will come up with our own definition of what "best" is. The world holds up many characteristics as virtues; most of these have little value to us.

 

[Mia.]

INTJs I've known always have intense, fiery emotions boiling just beneath the surface. Immature INTJs who want to appear robotic often deny their emotions so vehemently you can only smile knowingly and pat their fluffy little heads.

Yep, hehe. So cute.

I have met INTPs who seem a hundred times more robotic if you don't know them (needless to say I do, and I know first hand they're not robotic, but their emotions are carefully buried, like a mine).

Yep, hehe. So cute.

In fact, is it really that hard to believe that an INFP might consider life easier without all of those pesky emotions?

Only if they’re wimps. One doesn’t have to be ruled by one’s emotions/feelings in order to have the vital benefit and reconnaissance of their input.

Poor INTJs talk like robots, act like robots, treat you like robots, care about you as much as robots do, and just like robots, lack the humour detector and auto-irony module, yet, suprisingly, no one seems to express the will to fathom their rich inner emotional realms, those which exist only in reference to their own well being.

Yes, Zarathustra, I completely agree with you. INTPs are more rational, more self-critical, they more easily detach themselves from the constraints of their feelings when assessing a problem and are thus more objective when critical thinking is concerned, hence, "more robotic on the inside."

Unlike INTJs, who, in addition, don't poses their innate aversion towards overreaching conclusions, mysticism and similar regressive inhibitions, INTPs are lucky they don't have to cross that egoistic emotional barrier in their goal of distilling knowledge into truth.

Excluding the objective rationality of the INTPs, INTJs are the robots in all other aspects - they are the cold, selfish machines efficiently executing complex tasks with their auto-destruct sequences overriden.

By the way, many, many threads on this forum suffer - or, rather, benefit - from the same problem. Remember the Best King thread?

Dude that thread rocked.

What is it? The things that reek of truth are to much for you? You need something irrational, like the illusion that your egocentric INTJ emotionality is a virtue towards which we should strive, to grasp onto? Your unwarranted, idiotic arrogance that you have been flashing from the very start is nonsensical.

Is this a poll or an exam? Are you expecting opinions or waiting for the right answer? How is this supposed to convince anyone that your intentions are benevolent, that you are not using robotic in a deprecating manner and that you're not here to gloat at someones supposed ignorance?

INTJs care too much about themselves to be considered as objective as INTPs are. Ni-Fi is prohibiting you from being truly rational, truly logical, truly robotic... It's obvious that this inversion is not the thing you had in mind when starting this thread, but the truth is as cold, as unpleasant, and as beautiful as usual.

You’re new here, I take it.

Just pointing out the symmetric observation. Neither argument is particularly compelling, except insofar as tert (and inf) are somewhat useful for pointing out blind spots, but the relationship to "open-mindedness" per se is a bit of a stretch. The tert doesn't make one feel or think that one is open-minded or that it is good to be so, but rather points out those areas where, no matter how open minded one really is, one doesn't see the blind spots. Other people upon encountering those blind spots might make an observation of close-mindedness or stubbornness.

W/r to "open mindedness" in general, I have found that regardless of type, those who believe that they themselves are open-minded and chide others for being close-minded tend to bring up the topic on precisely those matters about which they themselves are quite stubbornly resistant to changing their own opinions, and are quite unaware of the unintended irony of their assertions. It's definitely a human foible, kind of like the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect), where those who are competent tend to underestimate their competence, while those who are incompetent tend to overestimate their competence. Similarly, those who are close-minded tend to overestimate their open-mindedness, while those who are truly open-minded tend to worry whether they're being open-minded enough.

Uumlau, wise as ever.

 

[Rasofy]

One doesn’t have to be ruled by one’s emotions/feelings in order to have the vital benefit and reconnaissance of their input.

Wise words, Mia!

 

[Zarathustra]

1 member, and 17 guests...

Because a) your post (#12) only somewhat shows it...

I wasn't aware that post #12 revealed the entirety of my thinking.

...and b) there would have been better ways to achieve whatever you are trying to achieve here with a thread less circular.

Well, that could be true.

I didn't look for the most effective possible way to do it -- I had an inclination, so I went for it.

But, to be honest, you'd have to know all of my intentions to know whether this is actually the case.

Frankly, apart from that early idiocy from Riva, the thread's pretty much done exactly what I want it to.

What is it? The things that reek of truth are to much for you?

No, it's that what you wrote was stupid.

You need something irrational, like the illusion that your egocentric INTJ emotionality is a virtue towards which we should strive, to grasp onto? Your unwarranted, idiotic arrogance that you have been flashing from the very start is nonsensical.

INTJs care too much about themselves to be considered as objective as INTPs are. Ni-Fi is prohibiting you from being truly rational, truly logical, truly robotic... It's obvious that this inversion is not the thing you had in mind when starting this thread, but the truth is as cold, as unpleasant, and as beautiful as usual.

It's funny to watch you do the exact same things you accuse INTJs of doing.

Is this a poll or an exam? Are you expecting opinions or waiting for the right answer?

Both.

How is this supposed to convince anyone that your intentions are benevolent, that you are not using robotic in a deprecating manner and that you're not here to gloat at someones supposed ignorance?

I'm sorry.

Apparently I scared your little emotions.

Try being here for more than two days before you start shooting off emotionally from the hip.

To be honest, though, you sound more like a young, immature INTJ (we've seen plenty like you) than an INTP.

 

[Zarathustra]

In fact, is it really that hard to believe that an INFP might consider life easier without all of those pesky emotions?

Only if they’re wimps. One doesn’t have to be ruled by one’s emotions/feelings in order to have the vital benefit and reconnaissance of their input.

Wise words, Mia!

The funny thing is, the troll tried to troll me for "not being open-minded enough to consider" what [MENTION=15842]raine_lynn[/MENTION] said, when, the truth is, I thought it was so obvious that INFPs might consider that, I didn't find a response to be interesting/necessary.

 

[Mia.]

The funny thing is, the troll tried to troll me for "not being open-minded enough to consider" what [MENTION=15842]raine_lynn[/MENTION] said, when, the truth is, I though it was so obvious that INFPs might consider that, I didn't a response to be interesting/necessary.

Your insight knows no bounds dude.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Here is an INTJ robot pic.
I never found any INTP robot pics though.

 

[Totenkindly]

Excuse me, Mr. Stage Manager:

I've already seen this performance a few thousand times.
Will we be getting a new play in soon?

 

[Red Herring]

Excuse me, Mr. Stage Manager:

I've already seen this performance a few thousand times.
Will we be getting a new play in soon?

Wrong forum, lady

 

[Rasofy]

Idea! Let's summon all the INFPs to see whether they agree with raine_lynn.