demagogic_schizoid
21 Apr 2007, 12:50 PM
First ship 'em dope & let 'em deal the brothers.
Give 'em guns, step back, and watch 'em kill each other.
"It's time to fight back", that's what Huey said.
2 shots in the dark now Huey's dead.
I got love for my brother, but we can never go nowhere
unless we share with each other. We gotta start makin' changes.
Learn to see me as a brother 'stead of 2 distant strangers.
And that's how it's supposed to be.
How can the Devil take a brother if he's close to me?
I'd love to go back to when we played as kids,
but things change, and that's the way it is.
Ok so, maybe Tupac doesn't quite apply. But it's a joke about borthers and sisters hatin' on each other. We're INTP's, we're a minority, and this is the INTP ghetto, yet, I find myself arguing with people on here, who in theory I should have a lot in common with. If this was real life a lot of us might have wiped each other out by now.:ph34r: It's not just me. I'll say it now, I do feel degraded after a personal flame-war, though I have nothing against a healthy disagreement or even a heated argument about a topic. This isn't a dig at anyone btw, it's introspection. Anyway, this thread is not a plea or a complaint or a whine, it's just an analysis of why I and some others find so much to argue with, on a forum of people I am supposed to resemble. So here goes. I'd appreciate any input, as these thoughts aren't complete yet.
As INTP's, I think we can compare our lives to this forum. Few rules. Loosely implemented. Easy-going, for the most part. And we like it that way. We couldn't have it any other way. However, at the same time, andI think this is true of most of us, just as it is of the forum, we could not operate without rules at all. One misconception of P's is that this patience is endless, or that the rules we do have, we take less seriously than J's (ie, most other forums). However, I thnk the opposite is true. On this forum, when someone does cross a line, the crackdown is usually much more aggressive, ruthless and venegeful than on other, more J forums. This is because, I venture to suggest, J's are used to making life fit their rules, they are used to the constant conflict between what they believe in and what is happeing, and the implementation of rules, the defending of a set of values or of a certain policy, the practice of, well, judging, is something they do regularly, so they are used to it, they accept it as the way they are. They know, despite the view of them as thinking they have all the answers, that it's their nature to have rules, and they expect them to be broken, and they expect to implement them a lot. I guess most forums on the net are like this, and most Mods are probably J's.
However, as TP's, and on this TP forum, the only rules we have are the ones we really think are important, the ones we believe make sense, are fundamentally right, and only an idiot could fail to adhere to. We aren't used to having our rules broken, because we have so few, and because they seem so reasonable. I guess that the average J sees themselves as going out and implementing rules, they see themselves as the imposer, but with us, when someone questions a fundamental rule, we feel imposed upon: they are attacking our very thought system, the core of what holds our thought-system (or the forum - have I laboured the point enough?) together. So when we do disagree, when someone goes against our "principles" (though I don't like the word, because I think we believe them to be more like logical guidelines, as we think they make sense rationally rather than just morally) we feel imposed upon, instantly defensive, and contemptuous of that person, as they are fundamentally out of line - they must be, because it takes a lot to get us angry, and if their "breaking of our rules" is not wrong, then the basis of our thought system is wrong, and it can't be because, as INTP's, we sat down and worked it out! After all, unlike J's, we don't have arbitrary rules, and we don't think our rules exist as a preference or because we actively seek to live by rules - we only have "natural rules", and anyone breaking them must be truly beyond the pale.
This leads me onto another related point - I have two distinct modes when approaching a topic, and I think I notice the same thing in many INTP's, though you may disagree. I have the questioning mode, and the answering mode. As P's, I would say the questioning mode is what we employ most of the time. We are NTP's (who'd have thought it, on this forum of all places) so we are inquisitive by nature, we want to reduce everything to it's core, for it to have a logical explanation, and we arrogantly think (and I'm guilty of this) that the world owes it to us to convince us, to answer all our questions. We mistrust others abilities and value our own, so we will not take things on faith, and we will not just trust that people have a logical basis for their premises. So we question endlessly, even when we have no real position, just to test the person's theory. Most of the time, this is fine, as both INTP's involved are dong the same thing, and we are detached.
However, sometimes we run into, or are ourselves in the mode of, an "answering", or pro-active, INTP. By this I mean, one who is acting positively on a vision they have, trying to implement something based on their underlying set of rules, their thought system (we seem to get attached to thought systems like other people get attached to ideologies or nations). As an "answering" INTP, because we believe we've already explained in our minds exactly our reasons for acting as we do, we are not patient of INTP's in their questioning mode. The INTP asking the questions may see the visionary INTP as an INTJ (a common accusation), they will challenge the vision of the INTP, and in doing so, challenge the INTP's personality itself, as their thought system, the vision they are acting on, is effectively who they are (I mean, it's not like there is much Fi or Si to fall back on). This can lead to a great intolerance for questions and the questioner, a contempt for them in fact, because basically we think that if this person can't even see our basic guidelines, can't even respect our basic rules, then there is no common ground, and what's more, they must be an idiot, because our rules are logical, we didn't choose them, they are just the bare minimum which as rational human beings we had no choice but to live by, because they are so fundamental, like a (albeit subconscious) constitution for our mind.
Any thoughts on this?
Give 'em guns, step back, and watch 'em kill each other.
"It's time to fight back", that's what Huey said.
2 shots in the dark now Huey's dead.
I got love for my brother, but we can never go nowhere
unless we share with each other. We gotta start makin' changes.
Learn to see me as a brother 'stead of 2 distant strangers.
And that's how it's supposed to be.
How can the Devil take a brother if he's close to me?
I'd love to go back to when we played as kids,
but things change, and that's the way it is.
Ok so, maybe Tupac doesn't quite apply. But it's a joke about borthers and sisters hatin' on each other. We're INTP's, we're a minority, and this is the INTP ghetto, yet, I find myself arguing with people on here, who in theory I should have a lot in common with. If this was real life a lot of us might have wiped each other out by now.:ph34r: It's not just me. I'll say it now, I do feel degraded after a personal flame-war, though I have nothing against a healthy disagreement or even a heated argument about a topic. This isn't a dig at anyone btw, it's introspection. Anyway, this thread is not a plea or a complaint or a whine, it's just an analysis of why I and some others find so much to argue with, on a forum of people I am supposed to resemble. So here goes. I'd appreciate any input, as these thoughts aren't complete yet.
As INTP's, I think we can compare our lives to this forum. Few rules. Loosely implemented. Easy-going, for the most part. And we like it that way. We couldn't have it any other way. However, at the same time, andI think this is true of most of us, just as it is of the forum, we could not operate without rules at all. One misconception of P's is that this patience is endless, or that the rules we do have, we take less seriously than J's (ie, most other forums). However, I thnk the opposite is true. On this forum, when someone does cross a line, the crackdown is usually much more aggressive, ruthless and venegeful than on other, more J forums. This is because, I venture to suggest, J's are used to making life fit their rules, they are used to the constant conflict between what they believe in and what is happeing, and the implementation of rules, the defending of a set of values or of a certain policy, the practice of, well, judging, is something they do regularly, so they are used to it, they accept it as the way they are. They know, despite the view of them as thinking they have all the answers, that it's their nature to have rules, and they expect them to be broken, and they expect to implement them a lot. I guess most forums on the net are like this, and most Mods are probably J's.
However, as TP's, and on this TP forum, the only rules we have are the ones we really think are important, the ones we believe make sense, are fundamentally right, and only an idiot could fail to adhere to. We aren't used to having our rules broken, because we have so few, and because they seem so reasonable. I guess that the average J sees themselves as going out and implementing rules, they see themselves as the imposer, but with us, when someone questions a fundamental rule, we feel imposed upon: they are attacking our very thought system, the core of what holds our thought-system (or the forum - have I laboured the point enough?) together. So when we do disagree, when someone goes against our "principles" (though I don't like the word, because I think we believe them to be more like logical guidelines, as we think they make sense rationally rather than just morally) we feel imposed upon, instantly defensive, and contemptuous of that person, as they are fundamentally out of line - they must be, because it takes a lot to get us angry, and if their "breaking of our rules" is not wrong, then the basis of our thought system is wrong, and it can't be because, as INTP's, we sat down and worked it out! After all, unlike J's, we don't have arbitrary rules, and we don't think our rules exist as a preference or because we actively seek to live by rules - we only have "natural rules", and anyone breaking them must be truly beyond the pale.
This leads me onto another related point - I have two distinct modes when approaching a topic, and I think I notice the same thing in many INTP's, though you may disagree. I have the questioning mode, and the answering mode. As P's, I would say the questioning mode is what we employ most of the time. We are NTP's (who'd have thought it, on this forum of all places) so we are inquisitive by nature, we want to reduce everything to it's core, for it to have a logical explanation, and we arrogantly think (and I'm guilty of this) that the world owes it to us to convince us, to answer all our questions. We mistrust others abilities and value our own, so we will not take things on faith, and we will not just trust that people have a logical basis for their premises. So we question endlessly, even when we have no real position, just to test the person's theory. Most of the time, this is fine, as both INTP's involved are dong the same thing, and we are detached.
However, sometimes we run into, or are ourselves in the mode of, an "answering", or pro-active, INTP. By this I mean, one who is acting positively on a vision they have, trying to implement something based on their underlying set of rules, their thought system (we seem to get attached to thought systems like other people get attached to ideologies or nations). As an "answering" INTP, because we believe we've already explained in our minds exactly our reasons for acting as we do, we are not patient of INTP's in their questioning mode. The INTP asking the questions may see the visionary INTP as an INTJ (a common accusation), they will challenge the vision of the INTP, and in doing so, challenge the INTP's personality itself, as their thought system, the vision they are acting on, is effectively who they are (I mean, it's not like there is much Fi or Si to fall back on). This can lead to a great intolerance for questions and the questioner, a contempt for them in fact, because basically we think that if this person can't even see our basic guidelines, can't even respect our basic rules, then there is no common ground, and what's more, they must be an idiot, because our rules are logical, we didn't choose them, they are just the bare minimum which as rational human beings we had no choice but to live by, because they are so fundamental, like a (albeit subconscious) constitution for our mind.
Any thoughts on this?