[MBTI General] Typical INFP - INTJ conversation

[Resonance]

He was dead serous, it was something he had been practicing for a while.

the real reason NTs are funny, revealed

 

[highlander]

Poor INTJs. So book smart. So real world dumb.

I don't think this is right but kind of see what you are saying

 

[Esoteric Wench]

Your premise is flawed. What would an INTJ be doing in a bar?

Ha! Perfect retort.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I love this thread. Poor INTJs. So book smart. So real world dumb. And INFPs? Love 'em. But this thread does have INFPs tendency to ponder such imponderables as "what color gala fundraiser dress should I wear that embodies my feelings about curing Diabetes" thing pegged. LOL!

:groans:

 

[Rebe]

^ Second. Wtf. :rolli:

 

[Craft]

INFP: Do you ever wonder if what one person sees when they look at something that is "yellow" is the same as what another person sees? Like maybe our brains perceive the colors differently but we just agree to call two different colors the same thing because we see them at the same time.

I don't think "time" is the issue here. I think its simply naming things based on what would suit most perceptions. If reality is true, then even if we can't identify the "true" color, we can identify "divisions".

Also, if we're talking about "colors", I think it would be important to talk about "Light". Can light be "black" in color? Can "darkness" be white? Can the sun have scorching, black flame? Can the absence of light be whiteness?

 

[Talisyn]

I don't think "time" is the issue here. I think its simply naming things based on what would suit most perceptions. If reality is true, then even if we can't identify the "true" color, we can identify "divisions".

Also, if we're talking about "colors", I think it would be important to talk about "Light". Can light be "black" in color? Can "darkness" be white? Can the sun have scorching, black flame? Can the absence of light be whiteness?

Apparently conversation between INFP and INTP is similiar to the INTJ in question. =) I love it.

And you are right of course, when you think of the nature of color. I was pleased when this came up in my physics class, I could finally stop wondering about it

 

[erm]

Also, if we're talking about "colors", I think it would be important to talk about "Light". Can light be "black" in color? Can "darkness" be white? Can the sun have scorching, black flame? Can the absence of light be whiteness?

Of course. Dreams and hallucinations are the most common examples.

There is light where there is no colour, and colour where there is no light. Equating the two is silly. Colours are mental.

 

[Coriolis]

Of course. Dreams and hallucinations are the most common examples.

There is light where there is no colour, and colour where there is no light. Equating the two is silly. Colours are mental.

Not so fast. Light is photons, and photons are characterized by their energy or wavelength. We use color designations to describe those photons whose wavelength falls in the range that human eyes can see: violet through red. We can equally well describe them in terms of wavelength, however: 400 nm - 700 nm. So, no light (no photons) means no color. On the other hand, light outside the visible spectrum might be described as having no color, since we cannot see it, and we cannot apply any of our color terminology to it.

Now, the various means of producing color can complicate the issue. White light is the presence of all colors, but the artist's blank white canvas is the absence of all colors. Colors add differently when mixing paints or other pigments than when mixing light, as in a laser light show or even on computer monitors. This is because in the second case, we are seeing the product of emission, whereas in the first we are generally seeing the product of reflection, with a white light source assumed.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I wonder if after awhile you could start to see virus' particles if you lived after being afflicted, a sort of eye evolution so that those after you could survive and avoid the affliction altogether. Possible? Perhaps you would just become immune to it, though.

 

[alexshippee]

INFP: Do you ever wonder if what one person sees when they look at something that is "yellow" is the same as what another person sees? Like maybe our brains perceive the colors differently but we just agree to call two different colors the same thing because we see them at the same time.

YES. i love this place, because i always think things like that and wonder if other people do too.

And as for being shallow-- well it's not the nature of life, but its a valid wonder. I wonder about lots of things. I don't feel the need to always be involved in deep philosophizing. Just to wonder and question is enough.

I agree :] If we always had to think deeply, we'd probably have to kill ourselves. Also, we'd come off as a little bit pretentious.

 

[Resonance]

Not so fast. Light is photons, and photons are characterized by their energy or wavelength. We use color designations to describe those photons whose wavelength falls in the range that human eyes can see: violet through red. We can equally well describe them in terms of wavelength, however: 400 nm - 700 nm. So, no light (no photons) means no color. On the other hand, light outside the visible spectrum might be described as having no color, since we cannot see it, and we cannot apply any of our color terminology to it.

Now, the various means of producing color can complicate the issue. White light is the presence of all colors, but the artist's blank white canvas is the absence of all colors. Colors add differently when mixing paints or other pigments than when mixing light, as in a laser light show or even on computer monitors. This is because in the second case, we are seeing the product of emission, whereas in the first we are generally seeing the product of reflection, with a white light source assumed.

no, he's right

think about it. dreams and hallucinations both allow you to perceive colour when there is no light. and light doesn't have colour until it hits an optic nerve, just a wavelength.

 

[Craft]

no, he's right

think about it. dreams and hallucinations both allow you to perceive colour when there is no light. and light doesn't have colour until it hits an optic nerve, just a wavelength.

Perceptions do not rely on light. Even if we are without our eyeballs, we could still perceive things. It makes sense but I think I'm missing something here..

 

[erm]

Not so fast. Light is photons, and photons are characterized by their energy or wavelength. We use color designations to describe those photons whose wavelength falls in the range that human eyes can see: violet through red. We can equally well describe them in terms of wavelength, however: 400 nm - 700 nm. So, no light (no photons) means no color. On the other hand, light outside the visible spectrum might be described as having no color, since we cannot see it, and we cannot apply any of our color terminology to it.

Now, the various means of producing color can complicate the issue. White light is the presence of all colors, but the artist's blank white canvas is the absence of all colors. Colors add differently when mixing paints or other pigments than when mixing light, as in a laser light show or even on computer monitors. This is because in the second case, we are seeing the product of emission, whereas in the first we are generally seeing the product of reflection, with a white light source assumed.

I know in the field of Physics, wavelengths of light are often abbreviated to colours. This is done out of convenience, and references how they are usually perceived in everyday life.

However, by the layman's use, as was referenced by the original post, colours are a mental phenomena.

And not surprisingly, this is how my conversations with INTJs usually go. Semantics, them taking things too literally, and me taking things not literally enough. Them never giving the benefit of the doubt, me always giving it etc.

 

[stringstheory]

I agree :] If we always had to think deeply, we'd probably have to kill ourselves. Also, we'd come off as a little bit pretentious.

Agreed; what's so wrong with talking about neat ideas or random musings, even if they aren't always the most plausible? I wonder about individual perception of colour often. It's just a conversation, and seeing as most NFs I know have an almost childlike wonder of how things like that work, and muse about "what if?". what's so offensive about that? Isn't that the catalyst to human discovery about the world in which we live?

 

[Craft]

Agreed; what's so wrong with talking about neat ideas or random musings, even if they aren't always the most plausible? I wonder about individual perception of colour often. It's just a conversation, and seeing as most NFs I know have an almost childlike wonder of how things like that work, and muse about "what if?". what's so offensive about that? Isn't that the catalyst to human discovery about the world in which we live?

It would even be better if one were to "pretentiously" dissect these things(imo). To add further random to the random.

I think this one is INTP thing --> "To dissect maniacally w/o any attention to practicality/plausibility and/or one's mental health."

 

[Abstract Thinker]

Wow, I love this place. I've had that EXACT same thought about colors and human perception, pondered it in the middle of a meeting at work, and then "awakened" to realize that I missed the whole meeting and I'm sitting alone in the room, and then I just pondered it some more.

But, I have a degree in electrical engineering, so then I think about the wavelengths and physics stuff, but then I decide that the pondering is much more fun.

No surprise that I've never worked in electrical engineering, is it? I probably shoulda studied literature or philosophy, or something much more interesting to me.

Sorry... musing again. Is this thread way off topic now?

 

[stringstheory]

It would even be better if one were to "pretentiously" dissect these things(imo). To add further random to the random.

I think this one is INTP thing --> "To dissect maniacally w/o any attention to practicality/plausibility and/or one's mental health."

Well personally, I enjoy doing the same for the most part...I think I may have been thinking that "shallow philosophizing" was referring to the topic matter, but perhaps not. Regardless, I'm always in my head thinking deeply about a lot of things, sometimes it IS nice to give it a rest and have what I like to call "stoner talks"

 

[Abstract Thinker]

^ "stoner talks" <-- nice.

pass it to the left? :hi:

 

[Bri]

Funny, I relate more to the INFP sides of these hypothetical conversations internally. My inner dialogue can be very whimsical!

But if someone asked me such a question, I'd assume the person was looking for a real answer, so I'm sure I'd come up with the same ol' typical INTJ lines...