Famous INTPs

[tragula]

Could it be fun to have a section to suggest and discuss famous real and fictional INTPs?
Just an idea I'm throwing out there! :huh:

[Jezebel]

A similar suggestion has been discussed before: http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=756

[tragula]

Thanks for pointing out it's been mulled over already....
I was thinking more like historical figures than celebrities though. Who cares about celebrities. Figuring out the types of major historical figures can add insights into their work and the way they changed the world.

[Jezebel]

I understand what you want isn't exactly the same, just thought you might be interested in seeing the somewhat similar thread since it got buried.

[NGene]

Could it be fun to have a section to suggest and discuss famous real and fictional INTPs?
Just an idea I'm throwing out there! :huh:
I think it would be fun to suggest and discuss famous INTPs, but a whole category for it might be a little too much.

If you want to discuss famous INTPs, you can do it in any other category that would suit - Entertainment, People and Psych, or the Pub.

[Edmond Zedo]

I think it would be fun to suggest and discuss famous INTPs, but a whole category for it might be a little too much.
I would love to see a forum dedicated at least to types of famous people and fictional characters, INTP and otherwise. I have many thoughts on the subject, but hesitate to clog the more general threads with my ramblings.

[QrioCT]

heck yes. kinda dumb, but like i have a slight tv character obsession with steven hyde from that 70's show with our brains being almost carbon copies.

[Edmond Zedo]

I'd guess ISTP for hyde. Perhaps INTJ for Forman.

[booyalab]

Yeah I think he's definitely an ISTP, he's got a very ISTP philosophy and lifestyle.

[QrioCT]

hyde? i think he's more intp cuz he has all these "theories and conspiracies" and forman said how he has very high IQ...(no offense to the S people, but i think N helps intelligence).

[booyalab]

hyde? i think he's more intp cuz he has all these "theories and conspiracies" and forman said how he has very high IQ...(no offense to the S people, but i think N helps intelligence).

um, 2 out of 3 of the people I've known with the highest IQ have been sensors so there goes YOUR little 'theory'. Think of it this way, an intuitive with an average IQ will work to develop the abstract part of their intelligence(reading, debating, going to college, etc) (because that's what they like) to give more of an appearance of high IQ, to the average joe, than a sensor of the same intelligence- who will be more concerned with tangible things than intellectual things.

[QrioCT]

yeah, im not saying sensors are dumb or anything. sorry if i sounded offensive. i think everyone has the same amount of capability, but they just use it differently. and i think IQ questions tend to lean towards the intuitive side, like math. but isnt theorizing more of a intuitive thing? just some random stuff i thought about hyde, not a biggy.

[Edmond Zedo]

Perhaps it is you who are ISTP! "Mwahahaha..." b

[booyalab]

yeah, im not saying sensors are dumb or anything. sorry if i sounded offensive. i think everyone has the same amount of capability, but they just use it differently. and i think IQ questions tend to lean towards the intuitive side, like math. but isnt theorizing more of a intuitive thing? just some random stuff i thought about hyde, not a biggy.

It's not about being offensive, it's about being wrong :)

Everyone has the same capability? Do you know what IQ even measures? It's your intellectual capacity, so if everyone was equally capable at thinking, we'd all have the same IQ-which contradicts everything else you've said. That which can be developed in your intellect is often done so more by intuitives, but the reason some people do better at IQ tests (on a whole, not just math) has less to do with dominant functions and more to do with how efficient your brain is at solving problems.

[booyalab]

I'm pretty sure Napoleon Dynamite's brother Chip is an INTP

[Edmond Zedo]

His name is Chip
And he's different
He don't conform
He wears a different uniform

He's out of the blue
And so you are too
Lemme sing about one thing that's clear
That nobody owns
The pleasure of tones
That belongs to the guy with no ear

[glassmoon]

hi,
I'm new to this so its more like a guess, but I think Lisa Simpson has is somewhat INTp'ish. What do you think?

The pianist Vladimir Horowitz looks like an INTp:
http://www.artfifa.com/photo22/230.jpg

[Edmond Zedo]

hi,
I'm new to this so its more like a guess, but I think Lisa Simpson has is somewhat INTp'ish. What do you think?
Hmm. INFJ's my guess, just because she's awfully F and awfully J. But cartoon characters are a bit beyond type as a rule.


The pianist Vladimir Horowitz looks like an INTp:
Could be, but the eyes and smile are fairly Eish. He doesn't look young, and could have balanced more than a slight.

[QrioCT]

It's not about being offensive, it's about being wrong :)

Everyone has the same capability? Do you know what IQ even measures? It's your intellectual capacity, so if everyone was equally capable at thinking, we'd all have the same IQ-which contradicts everything else you've said. That which can be developed in your intellect is often done so more by intuitives, but the reason some people do better at IQ tests (on a whole, not just math) has less to do with dominant functions and more to do with how efficient your brain is at solving problems.

nope, people are mostly made of same amount and quality of metal, but the shape is different. like some people are spoons, some people are forks. they are all good and bad at something. but otherwise when people are born they mostly all have about the same chance of becoming a certain way. thinking is just one of the functions well done by a certain "shape". but that doesnt make it so that they are more superior, because everyone could have been the same. just that people dont decide for themselves exactly how they want to be, its the nurture vs nature thing mostly.

also, IQ is a controversial measure for intelligence. a lot of it is learned, and not thought out by the people themselves. and yeah, S people are able to have high IQ im sure. but im just saying that when you go to psychological sites, they usually tell you that Ns are more into creative thinking and S are most into physical things.

[QrioCT]

Hmm. INFJ's my guess, just because she's awfully F and awfully J. But cartoon characters are a bit beyond type as a rule.


Could be, but the eyes and smile are fairly Eish. He doesn't look young, and could have balanced more than a slight.

yeah, i think lisa's an INFJ if cartoon characters could be analyzed like that. but sometimes she reminds me of an NT because she's so into ideas and stuff.

i heard somewhere that Mr. Burns is an INTP...but i dunno, he seems more like an INTJ or ENTJ to me.

[CreativeChaos]

From what I have read in MBTI, and you can see famous people on the Kiersy site,

Famous NTs: Those in the Nobel Prize winning catagory, the "geniuses", like Albert Einstein, that physicist in a wheel chair (sorry I'm bad at names), and other "scientist" famous types. Kiersy states that the top people in this domain are usually NTs. And the vast majority of people with PHDs are INs.

Famous SPs: These are the Artisans. If you find a "very" gifted and talented musician 98% of the time if you guess SP you would be right. ESFPs are the vast majority of top Actors, Musicians, and "Performers" in general. Elvis Presley was an ESFP. So in terms of famous performers take a guess at ESFP.

If you find a "very" technically gifted musician, especially in the classical area or "backup" musician area, or "solo" intrumentalist, guess ISFP and you'd be right most of the time.

Famous NFs: These are the people of the "self-help" fame area. Princess Di was said to be an INFP. Mother Thereasa has the INFP character type. Those who write the bestseller books in self-help are in the vast majority NFs. There are some ENFs that make it to the top artisan area. The guy who wrote Men are From Mars... is an NF and others of that time, in fame.

Famous SJ: Most politicians are SPs, also. But the next highest are SJs. Look to corporate CEOs and you'll find ESTJs all over the place. Donald Trump comes to mind as a famous ESTJ.

Nuff said: That's my two cents on the subject.

[Edmond Zedo]

nope, people are mostly made of same amount and quality of metal, but the shape is different. like some people are spoons, some people are forks. they are all good and bad at something.
That's ridiculous and very untrue. Some people are good at many things, and some people are horrible degenerates with no talent.

You might be NF thinking up things like this, as I've known a few who own that philosophy with pride.

[indie]

yeah, i think lisa's an INFJ if cartoon characters could be analyzed like that. but sometimes she reminds me of an NT because she's so into ideas and stuff.

I cannot believe we're analyzing the psychology of cartoon characters!

[QrioCT]

some people are good at many things like some tools can multitask. and some people are not good at anything because they are just like a lump of metal that doesnt help much. no, the ability of the tool doesnt equal.

but what im trying to say is, people have basically same amount and quality of metal when they are born. it was possible that Albert Einstein ended up dumb, or that hobo out there ended up successful. im basically trying to explain the famous theory of nurture here. i dont know how much exactly nature decides us, but i think nurture definately plays a big role.

[CreativeChaos]

CAPT, the Center for Psychological Type has gathered lots of statistics. They have "shown" that the higher up you go in education, the greater the number of Ns for the population.

Higher education, definitely favors the intuitive. Most proffessors are N and teach that way. This does *not* make others less intelligent, it just means higher education is dominated by Ns. And its the Ns that make the IQ tests. IQ tests are definitely favored by abstract thinking.

I hate IQ tests. Every time I start to take one, I start thinking of how stupid they are. I'm always analysing a test when I'm taking it.

There are *many* types of intellegence. Abstract intellegence is only one.

I happen to think that nature is more of a factor than nuture.

[Edmond Zedo]

but what im trying to say is, people have basically same amount and quality of metal when they are born.
You're still very wrong. Some are born with complex brains and resilient, strong bodies. Some are born dull and weak. It's a simple fact of biology.

[QrioCT]

hmmm..maybe. how much does genetics decide your brain? guessing from people's bodies being born strong or weak, unless a person has a mutation or illness, they are mostly capable of becoming strong even if you are small. but yeah i guess it might be easier for some people.
but how much ever it does, even if have good nature and a bad nurture, i dont think people would do as well. good quality metal with bad shaping is useless, but bad quality metal shaped into good shape would be useful. i still think nurture is a big deciding factor.

[Edmond Zedo]

You could easily drop the metal analogy.

Nurture is important. You were trying to say "all are created equal." from any measurable perspective, that's untrue.

[QrioCT]

no, not ALL are COMPLETELY equal. the statement that im trying to explain is people are basically(mostly) able to *become* about the same in a good way or bad by nurture, and the nature we are born with is not so different that it makes us distinctively unable to become a certain way like you cant teach a fish how to talk(with the exception of people born with mental disability). you can teach most people how to do most things if they came through similar nurture in the past. no, the nature isnt completely the same, but the difference is often not so big that an identical nurture cant overcome most of it.

[Edmond Zedo]

NOOO NOOO NOOO NOOO

[CreativeChaos]

That goes against MBTI type theory QrioCT. It *is* just a theory. But I have heard parents talk about how different their children are from birth. Many INTPs and INFPs grow up being the way they are *despite* well-meaning parents of different types trying to "mold" them to be like the rest.

Uhh... didn't this start out trying to type famous people?... or something like that? The Nature versus Nuture arguments have been way overdone. Where can you draw the line? Really?

[Edmond Zedo]

I think it's amusing the way the INFP posters don't seem to realize they automatically see everything differently. (Type as a theory, as if it could be mathematically disproven in the future)

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by:Edmond Zedo
I think it's amusing the way the INFP posters don't seem to realize they automatically see everything differently. (Type as a theory, as if it could be mathematically disproven in the future)

Good point Edmond. The "soft" sciences can't "prove" anything and neither can the "hard" sciences. It's all "theory". Human behavior, thoughts and opionions *can* be quantitized by survey methods. CAPT, the Center for Psychological Type gathers gobbs of stats on MBTI. So yes, as we get better at observing and analyzing human behavior, it can be "proven" quantitatively just as much as hard sciences.

If you don't hold to MBTI "theory", then why are you here calling yourself an INTP? *All* of MBTI is just "theory".

Carl Jung has been duley dubbed an INTP, by the way. *He* is the one this is all fashioned after.

Isabel Myers was an INFP. I don't get the statement that we (INFP posters)automatically see everything differently.

Perhaps that's true but, then, *we* are the ones who see things as they *really are*. ;) Not some INTP computer-mind like generation of reality which can *only* be a severe distortion. :smooch:

[Edmond Zedo]

I didn't expect you to understand *snicker snicker* ;P

It's not a theory, it's a way of thinking, and is neither provable nor disprovable. It's valid to anyone who utilizes it. Correction: As I've said before, it may be scientifically proven someday if type can be tied to neurological and/or genetic difference.

I know Jung is INTP, and I seem to remember hearing Myers is INFP, but I don't know that much about her.

[Edmond Zedo]

I don't get the statement that we (INFP posters)automatically see everything differently.

Perhaps that's true but, then, *we* are the ones who see things as they *really are*. ;) Not some INTP computer-mind like generation of reality which can *only* be a severe distortion.
They call us Rationals because we're in the business of being right!

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by Edmond Zedo:
It's not a theory, it's a way of thinking, and is neither provable nor disprovable. It's valid to anyone who utilizes it. Correction: As I've said before, it may be scientifically proven someday if type can be tied to neurological and/or genetic difference

Oh Brother! Now I *really* have to engage my NT. What a pain.
Theory: implies considerable evidence to support a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena

I *really* don't want to have to drag out more quotes on *what* a theory is. Of *course* MBTI is a "theory". "Theories" cannot necessarily be "proved". But that doesn't mean it's not a theory. It is an explanation of the phenomena of personality type. It is a personality type theory.

*And* you can "show" that certain ideas are "recognizably valid" through measuring and observing human behavior. In the "soft" sciences this is done through surveying techniques and other qualitative research techiniques. Surveying is the technique Isabel Myers used to develope her MBTI typology. Why go about "typing" other people if you don't "recognize" this type theory as being "valid"?



They call us Rationals because we're in the business of being right!

Be reasonable! After all, logic dictates that Idealists hold the most perfect form of rationality, morals, and good looks. :devil: :smooch:

[Edmond Zedo]

Why go about "typing" other people if you don't "recognize" this type theory as being "valid"?
*Because* it's *not* *a* "theory" to *me*. I consider a *theory* to be "something" which is a *possible* explanation OF phenomena. *Type*, as we are "discussing it", is "subjective", the *evidence* which supports it is subjective, and *no* extraneous knowledge or hard evidence can "change" MY view of "it".

[CreativeChaos]

:rofl:


Okay, *now* you are just being "RUDE. "


:rofl:

[Edmond Zedo]

I wanna make a deal with you, girl,
get it signed by the heads of state.
Wanna make a deal with you, girl,
be recognized 'round the world.

It's my Nonalignment Pact!
Nonalignment Pact!
Sign it!
Nonalignment Pact!

--PU

[jyakulis]

That goes against MBTI type theory QrioCT. It *is* just a theory. But I have heard parents talk about how different their children are from birth. Many INTPs and INFPs grow up being the way they are *despite* well-meaning parents of different types trying to "mold" them to be like the rest.


Heh yeah my parents said I could barely talk and I was ranting and raving about how I wanted to run speriments (I couldn't say experiement) all day. They said I'd take my action figures and run gravity type experiments. And I use to steal the salt and the sugar and do some sort of experiment, what I don't know, I don't even remember doing that stuff. Then I got obsessed with legos and lincoln logs and never looked back.

[mgb]

*Because* it's *not* *a* "theory" to *me*. I consider a *theory* to be "something" which is a *possible* explanation OF phenomena. *Type*, as we are "discussing it", is "subjective", the *evidence* which supports it is subjective, and *no* extraneous knowledge or hard evidence can "change" MY view of "it".

OK Zedo, that was pretty funny.

[booyalab]

Temperament in general is a theory (which is like zedo said, an explanation of phenomena). MBTI is a framework, akin to the number system. This is why Kiersey called it a Temperament SORTER not a Temperament THEORY. MBTI is one way of correlating the little theories that make up what we think of as personality into a conceptional structure.

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by booyalab:

Temperament in general is a theory (which is like zedo said, an explanation of phenomena). MBTI is a framework, akin to the number system. This is why Kiersey called it a Temperament SORTER not a Temperament THEORY. MBTI is one way of correlating the little theories that make up what we think of as personality into a conceptional structure.

Right booyalab. *Subjective* phenomenon is just as important to develop theories about as so-called *objective* phenomenon.

It's like the tree in the forest line:

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Objective reality: if it falls where there is atmosphere then it makes sound waves. Subjective reality: It does *not* make "sound" unless a creature with the right equipment, such as a human being, is there when the tree falls, and the sound waves produce a vibration on the ear, which is then translated by the brain as "sound".

How much of *objective* reality is really objective? How many quantifiable theories do we have that are subjective? After all, we produce our machines after a model of ourselves and our five senses. And scientists are known for being all too human and allowing thier predjudeces to affect there results. What predjudeces do we *all* have as a human race that we are not catching. Science is all about developing theories that are reproduceable and therefore verifiable by others. "Subjective" science is no different. How do we know what else is out there or what we are getting wrong because we are all "blind" and therfore do not know what "sight" is. (A metaphor, I'm sure you get it).

And what the hell was that poem Zedo? :devil: :blink: You definitely write like your avatar looks. But your way off with your theory ideas. :p It was just too hilarious. I had to wait a day and come back to see what it actually said.

[sbw]

um, 2 out of 3 of the people I've known with the highest IQ have been sensors so there goes YOUR little 'theory'. Think of it this way, an intuitive with an average IQ will work to develop the abstract part of their intelligence(reading, debating, going to college, etc) (because that's what they like) to give more of an appearance of high IQ, to the average joe, than a sensor of the same intelligence- who will be more concerned with tangible things than intellectual things.


Hyde: ISTP (I have a friend who's a lot like him)

Foreman: ENFJ

Red: ISTJ

[booyalab]

Right booyalab. *Subjective* phenomenon is just as important to develop theories about as so-called *objective* phenomenon.

It's like the tree in the forest line:

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

Objective reality: if it falls where there is atmosphere then it makes sound waves. Subjective reality: It does *not* make "sound" unless a creature with the right equipment, such as a human being, is there when the tree falls, and the sound waves produce a vibration on the ear, which is then translated by the brain as "sound".

How much of *objective* reality is really objective? How many quantifiable theories do we have that are subjective? After all, we produce our machines after a model of ourselves and our five senses. And scientists are known for being all too human and allowing thier predjudeces to affect there results. What predjudeces do we *all* have as a human race that we are not catching. Science is all about developing theories that are reproduceable and therefore verifiable by others. "Subjective" science is no different. How do we know what else is out there or what we are getting wrong because we are all "blind" and therfore do not know what "sight" is. (A metaphor, I'm sure you get it).

And what the hell was that poem Zedo? :devil: :blink: You definitely write like your avatar looks. But your way off with your theory ideas. :p It was just too hilarious. I had to wait a day and come back to see what it actually said.

your random ways of emphasizing words are distracting, by the way. I wasn't really agreeing with you or Zedo, exactly, because you didn't distinguish between MBTI and personality when you identified them as theories (or non-theories in Zedo's case). MBTI is like a prism for viewing personality, socionics is another prism, etc. But personality/archetypes/temperament are the attempts to explain human behavior, not MBTI.

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by booyalab
your random ways of emphasizing words are distracting, by the way. I wasn't really agreeing with you or Zedo, exactly, because you didn't distinguish between MBTI and personality when you identified them as theories (or non-theories in Zedo's case). MBTI is like a prism for viewing personality, socionics is another prism, etc. But personality/archetypes/temperament are the attempts to explain human behavior, not MBTI.

My emphasize of words is *not* random. If you will read the words, you will see that I emphasize those words as I would speak them. I was simply trying to make my written word as close to my spoken word as possible. But if it is a distraction, I'll stop. It just seems dull to me without them.



Originally posted by booyalab:

Temperament in general is a theory (which is like zedo said, an explanation of phenomena). MBTI is a framework, akin to the number system. This is why Kiersey called it a Temperament SORTER not a Temperament THEORY. MBTI is one way of correlating the little theories that make up what we think of as personality into a conceptional structure.


Originally Posted by Edmond Zedo
*Because* it's *not* *a* "theory" to *me*. I consider a *theory* to be "something" which is a *possible* explanation OF phenomena. *Type*, as we are "discussing it", is "subjective", the *evidence* which supports it is subjective, and *no* extraneous knowledge or hard evidence can "change" MY view of "it".


Originally Posted by CreativeChaos
Right booyalab. *Subjective* phenomenon is just as important to develop theories about as so-called *objective* phenomenon

Okay, this was the progression, as I see it. I said you were right, not that you agreed with me. I said "right booyalab" because you had pointed out that Temperament is a theory. Edmond said that type is subjective and the evidence that supports it is subjecive, cannot be proven by hard evidence. My intpretation of his conclusion was that subjective knowledge cannot support theories that can have a definitive conclusion.

You said, temperament in general is a theory. Temperament is subjective. Therefore, I said "right". Subjective phenomenon is just as important to develop theories about as so-called objective phenomenon.

Everything just got lost in the hoop-lah. I tend to tease a lot, and perhaps it didn't come off right here. If I have offended anyone, I'm sorry. I was just poking fun. Hard to do across the internet *especially* if people misinterpret your intentions. That's why the emphasizes and the emoticons.

[booyalab]

Hyde: ISTP (I have a friend who's a lot like him)

Foreman: ENFJ

Red: ISTJ

Foreman seems like too much of a pansy to be a J. Or else he's an introverted J...like ISFJ or something. ISTJs tend to be more quiet in their anal-retentiveness don't they? I think Red's an ESTJ

[Edmond Zedo]

And what the hell was that poem Zedo? :devil: :blink: You definitely write like your avatar looks.
Thanks, but that's a Pere Ubu song.

[booyalab]

My emphasize of words is *not* random. If you will read the words, you will see that I emphasize those words as I would speak them. I was simply trying to make my written word as close to my spoken word as possible. But if it is a distraction, I'll stop. It just seems dull to me without them.



It seems random because I don't stop at certain words and just stare at them to soak in the 'vital essentiality' or whatever else I imagine an NF would say :P It takes me about a second or even less to read each paragraph, but it's hard when other, unnaturally located, things are strewn about in and around the words.
I also emphasize words but I try to use caps, and I try to only emphasize one or two things at the most per post, if ever. (even then, people on here assume I'm yelling...so maybe you dont want to do that)

[Edmond Zedo]

Foreman seems like too much of a pansy to be a J. Or else he's an introverted J...like ISFJ or something. ISTJs tend to be more quiet in their anal-retentiveness don't they? I think Red's an ESTJ
Eric can't be an SJ. My good INTJ friend had a lot of quirks/traits in common with him, 'swhy I guess that.

[booyalab]

Eric can't be an SJ. My good INTJ friend had a lot of quirks/traits in common with him, 'swhy I guess that.

those quirks/traits are probably the actors idea. Come to think of it, we probably shouldn't be trying to type characters..they're usually so unrealistic.

[Edmond Zedo]

It seems random because I don't stop at certain words and just stare at them to soak in the 'vital essentiality' or whatever else I imagine an NF would say :P It takes me about a second to read each paragraph, but it's hard when other, unnaturally located, things are strewn about in and around the words.
I also emphasize words but I try to use caps, and I try to only emphasize one or two things at the most per post, if ever. (even then, people on here assume I'm yelling...so maybe you dont want to do that)
"*YEAH. OVERUSE OF ENUNCIATION DESENSITIZES THE READER.*"

[booyalab]

"*YEAH. OVERUSE OF ENUNCIATION DESENSITIZES THE READER.*"
dont hurt me..

[Edmond Zedo]

those quirks/traits are probably the actors idea. Come to think of it, we probably shouldn't be trying to type characters..they're usually so unrealistic.
Most sitcom characters definitely. The characters are usually wrapped around the jokes.

[Edmond Zedo]

dont hurt me..
aww ;)

[booyalab]

The characters are usually wrapped around the jokes.

thats a good way of putting it, also I think the best chance of a character fitting a certain type is if the actor playing them has an accomodating personality or one that coincides with that of the character.....like u mentioned Harrison Ford playin Solo in the star wars thread

[booyalab]

aww ;)
yeah i know, fear is so adorabubble (<--copyright me, inc. 1993. my word)

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by booyalab:
It seems random because I don't stop at certain words and just stare at them to soak in the 'vital essentiality' or whatever else I imagine an NF would say It takes me about a second or even less to read each paragraph, but it's hard when other, unnaturally located, things are strewn about in and around the words.
I also emphasize words but I try to use caps, and I try to only emphasize one or two things at the most per post, if ever. (even then, people on here assume I'm yelling...so maybe you dont want to do that)

:) NOW I see! It's funny I used to do that as well, only because I was to lazy to take the time to type the *s. Then some NFs got onto me for typing in all caps because it seemed to angry. So I went to *s to emphasize words and it seems to go over okay at the INFP site. Perhaps it does come across as yelling also. Hmm... (My NF friends haven't said anything about that, but then maybe they're being polite. I'll have to ask). I just simply must use parenthasizes when the real meaning of the word is not the word used as in "so called" objective analyesis would become "objective". I hate being misunderstood. I guess I've been trying to hard. I guess the additional emphasis is an emotional thing. So I'll just start toning it down here. This better? :)

[booyalab]

:) NOW I see! It's funny I used to do that as well, only because I was to lazy to take the time to type the *s. Then some NFs got onto me for typing in all caps because it seemed to angry. So I went to *s to emphasize words and it seems to go over okay at the INFP site. Perhaps it does come across as yelling also. Hmm... (My NF friends haven't said anything about that, but then maybe they're being polite. I'll have to ask). I just simply must use parenthasizes when the real meaning of the word is not the word used as in "so called" objective analyesis would become "objective". I hate being misunderstood. I guess I've been trying to hard. I guess the additional emphasis is an emotional thing. So I'll just start toning it down here. This better? :)

I have a feeling it will be impossible to get mad at you. (no matter how hard I try..jk) yes that's splendid.

[Edmond Zedo]

Oh, these INFPs are all the same, thinking deep down we really seek harmony and value compassion just as much as they do. :I

[booyalab]

Oh, these INFPs are all the same, thinking deep down we really seek harmony and value compassion just as much as they do. :I

so you ACTUALLY LIKE arguing with NFs? honestly??

[Edmond Zedo]

No, because they are unconvinced by reason. But it's better than agreeing with them.

[booyalab]

No, because they are unconvinced by reason. But it's better than agreeing with them.

but what the argument came down to wasn't even remotely significant. Sometimes you just have to get a life and move on. (*specifically* you :P)
(edit: even if it's better to disagree with an NF, it's even better to disagree with an NT)

[Edmond Zedo]

Baby, the Nonaligment Pact is all about moving on.

[Edmond Zedo]

(*specifically* you :P)
Oh BURN!

[CreativeChaos]

Wow! Got interuppted by my boss and came back to see all this. Lets just move on then!

[booyalab]

Wow! Got interuppted by my boss and came back to see all this. Lets just move on then!

I think we were just about to move on...outside

[Edmond Zedo]

*runs away*

[booyalab]

*runs away*
um, you're still here. *scoffs*

[Edmond Zedo]

Was not! Mmm, Chipotle.

[EdwinJefferson]

Heh! You guys just don't get it. Kindness is the most important thing in life. So keep jeering at others behind your little computer. You guys must know what you're doing.

Shut it hippy.

[booyalab]

Was not! Mmm, Chipotle.

ooh thats a good idea, there's a chipotle by my school....you know what's good? put some of the lime on it.

[mgb]

Shut it hippy.

Good thing you are behind your computer. I bet CC would sick some dalmations on you if she had the chance.

[EdwinJefferson]

Good thing you are behind your computer. I bet CC would sick some dalmations on you if she had the chance.

Damn. Intelligence must have told her I hate dogs... *plans*

[CreativeChaos]

Yeah! It's all gone to the dogs anyway.

[enydona]

Hmm... What about myself? I draw random things and read lots. Yay.

http://24.211.216.138/vq/pix/xmaspreview.jpg (not work safe unless you have an open minded boss)

[booyalab]

Hmm... What about myself? I draw random things and read lots. Yay.

http://24.211.216.138/vq/pix/xmaspreview.jpg (not work safe unless you have an open minded boss)

but are you famous?

[enydona]

In my own little world. :devil:

[CreativeChaos]

Ok,

This is a good thread. I say Stephen Hawkings is an INTP and is the most prominant INTP of today. He is said to be today's Einstein.

[Edmond Zedo]

I would estimate you are correct. But is Silent Bob? That is the question.

[CreativeChaos]

Oh it's you again, you hot thing. No I don't think Silent Bob is correct at all.

[Edmond Zedo]

Nooge.

[CreativeChaos]

whats nooge?

[Edmond Zedo]

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

[CreativeChaos]

Oh Man! No Fair! Is it an insult! What? Give me a clue at least!

[mgb]

How about those famous INTPs? what happened to all the other threads

[cafe]

I'm going to have to start watching TV. I'm way behind on this stuff. How 'bout book characters? Don (intp) and I (infj) both like Tom Clancy. Anyone esle?

I can come up with a few other authors we both like.

Heather

[Edmond Zedo]

*whispers to mgbradsh* FCI closed them because, I guess, we aren't supposed to talk about that stuff. Shh!

[Edmond Zedo]

*whispers* this could be like Spotless Mind...If we keep hiding in new threads, we could lock the whole forum up.

[mgb]

*looks around* just make sure to remember to go to the beach.

[CreativeChaos]

Don't know what you guys are talking about, but I loved Spotless Mind. Cool! Wierd! Do you think Jim Carey was playing a very introverted INTP in that movie or INFP? What was his job?

[mgb]

Don't know what you guys are talking about, but I loved Spotless Mind. Cool! Wierd! Do you think Jim Carey was playing a very introverted INTP in that movie or INFP? What was his job?

Do people pat you on the head a lot?

[CreativeChaos]

Oh, no! This is supposed to be about real INTPs. Who was the guy that was played in A Beautiful Mind with Russel Crowe? Was he an INTP?

[CreativeChaos]

Origianlly posted by mgbradsh:
Do people pat you on the head a lot?

Not as often as I'd like. :wub:

[Elro]

Oh, no! This is supposed to be about real INTPs. Who was the guy that was played in A Beautiful Mind with Russel Crowe? Was he an INTP?

Argh. Not this again. I still think Nash was portrayed as an INTJ, though admittedly I haven't seen the movie in a long while. Nor do I know much about the real person.

[MonChat]

what type is Rowan Atkinson in the BritCom BlackAdder?

[Neuroneuster]

Erm, how about Steve Burns from BLUE's CLUES?
Was he an INTP? Well, he looked a bit nerdy but erm, that pretty suites him.
So tell me.

How bout his real type?

[Prothero]

what type is Rowan Atkinson in the BritCom BlackAdder?

First season = eSfP, perhaps? However frustrated he was, he usually failed to recognize his contributions to his worst problems.

After that he seemed more INTJ, except in the Christmas special, including the Black Adder of the future.