Again, the emphasis is on the "can". INTJs can also be narrow-lived, step-counting trolls whose in-born intelligence is rivaled only by their bigotry and defensive, hasty conclusions.
That said, they can also be some of the most intellectual people around, surpassing even INTPs, who, it must be said, have the greatest inclination toward intellectual pursuits.
This is because: the intellect, like the physical body, is something that must be fostered and attended to. The analogues between physical and mental training are striking.
For whatever reason, an uncommon degree of drive attends the introverted intuitive's mindset. This drive will often lead INTJs to make the long-term effort required to develop their minds and rational abilities.
As I've stated, the INTP mindset is, if descriptions are correct, unquestionably the most inclined toward this development. But just as the SP mindset, which places kinaesthetic intelligence at the forefront of the psychological processes, inclines members of that group toward prowess in physical pursuits, this inclination must be acted upon and fostered for it to bear fruit.
Damn it, you quoted me before I fixed my misspelling
I have a better thread idea:
"Why ESFPs can be more intellectual than INTJs"
Then again, if that would even be controversial, that is rather sad...
Example 2 of mistaking your Fi for Te.
Go back to your thread on how dating "inherently" sucks.
Until you came in here, this was actually a reasonably intelligent thread.
That thread's played out, I'm looking for my new thrill.
This thread makes no sense.
Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense
So Intellectual - no sense = lots of thought + intelligence. So, if u take intellectuals & subtract them not making sense, u get intelligence. lol, I think it's true
I have a contribution, about deduction. Mathematics all reduces to tautology: things equaling themselves. So nothing new is brought into existence (such as truth) & the revelations are of perspective. Math can show you reality in a new way, but nothing new is ever found. I think (woops I mean 'feel' I don't have the thinking gene) mathematics is about building new structures of perspective.
Nothing can be created nor destroyed, just reorganized and restructured.
Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense
What you said about mathematics makes sense but that's not deduction.I have a contribution, about deduction. Mathematics all reduces to tautology: things equaling themselves. So nothing new is brought into existence (such as truth) & the revelations are of perspective. Math can show you reality in a new way, but nothing new is ever found. I think (woops I mean 'feel' I don't have the thinking gene) mathematics is about building new structures of perspective.
Objection!Tell you what...give an ESFP to an INTP and I promise you the "intellectual" would go out the window
Objection!!edit: just playing...knowing a real ESFP, they would actually love the intellectual
He probably means that the information in the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in its premises, so that it offers no new information, no new truths. A logician will tell you that deductive arguments are truth-preserving.I dunno if this is common with INTJs, but my INTJ friend claimed that new truths cannot be discovered via deduction, which i think is X over 9000..
Jennifer: that makes a lot of sense, actually. I do have to wonder, though, the extent to which we can realistically expect to develop functions that are in their operations opposed without going nutty, though...
He probably means that the information in the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in its premises, so that it offers no new information, no new truths. A logician will tell you that deductive arguments are truth-preserving.
No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.See, that's what I used to believe.
And while I think there's truth to it, I don't think it gives the whole picture.
First off, we don't all come to the game with the same premises (not even close, really), and, second, what if conclusions based on some of the premises that are out there have not yet been realized and/or adopted by the broader society. Both of these issues leave open the opportunity for deduction to offer new information, new truth.
No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.
The first issue has no bearing on the question at all, for if new premises bring new conclusions, then it is because these premises contain new information. It is not the deductive reasoning that injects new information into the argument: the argument itself is new. The second issue does not prove INTP's friend's statement wrong if it is understood as I described above, for it only holds that all conclusions must necessarily follow from the information contained in the premises so that one may draw new conclusions from old premises, but not information that is not already contained in them. You can arrange the pieces in a new way, but the pieces remain the same.
No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.
The first issue has no bearing on the question at all, for if new premises bring new conclusions, then it is because these premises contain new information. It is not the deductive reasoning that injects new information into the argument: the argument itself is new. The second issue does not prove INTP's friend's statement wrong if it is understood as I described above, for it only holds that all conclusions must necessarily follow from the information contained in the premises so that one may draw new conclusions from old premises, but not information that is not already contained in them. You can arrange the pieces in a new way, but the pieces remain the same.
I was talking about how deduction works while you talk about how it can be used. The latter, however, is not what INTP seemed to have in mind when he complained about his friend's statement and certainly not what I originally replied to.I already understood all this, so I think you're missing point.
I'm talking about the possibility for deduction to bring new information into the world.
I was talking about how deduction works while you talk about how it can be used. The latter, however, is not what INTP seemed to have in mind when he complained about his friend's statement and certainly not what I originally replied to.