Textbook INTPs Unite!

[paladinoflunaria]

Don't mean to tear a rift in the forum, but I'm curious as to who considers themself a "textbook" INTP. Some of us are more INTP than others- that's not really arguable.

I'm definitely textbook. I'd like to get the people who are the most strongly INTP together and discuss habits and mannerisms, so as to see for ourselves how alike we can be. Granted, this could be abused, and some might think that I'm just pinning "textbook" on everyone here that is like me, but I can assure you that's not the case. I shouldn't even have had to say the previous sentence, but some people on this forum might have assumed that. This is proof of major differences between some people on the forum. You're encouraging my J side, ye stinkers! =P

I'm surely not the only one who sees the differences.

Perhaps this thread would be to weed out those who stand on the line between types, and we could make another to discuss tendencies for the "bookies."

Edit: And I shall rant for a moment. Currently this thread has 4 views and 1 vote. It's anonymous, people! For the sake of truth, participate!

[jittus rye]

:mellow:

[Hypnos]

I think there was a time I was a textbook INTP, and my preferences tend to the canonical, but I have outgrown many of negative tendencies of INTPs. In particular, under stress I don't show typical INTP-under-stress behaviors anymore.

[antireconciler]

paladinoflunaria, in the set "all people", feels alien
paladinoflunaria, in the set "INTP", feels alien
paladinoflunaria, in the set "textbook INTP", feels ...
paladinoflunaria feels ...

Somehow, in the long run, I don't think you're going to have much luck in this direction. Try another.

[shaytana]

I can't answer this question. Yes and No.
6 billion people, 16 types.
There are going to be subtypes for each type.

Almost everything in the INTP description fits me, but not completely. I am more than the description says, there is a lot more to me than 4 little letters.

[file cabinet]

I can't answer this question. Yes and No.
6 billion people, 16 types.
There are going to be subtypes for each type.

Almost everything in the INTP description fits me, but not completely. I am more than the description says, there is a lot more to me than 4 little letters.

it's an acronym though so it's more letters then you think!!

[Melody]

Me me me.

[BritainOphira]

I am pretty much a textbook INTP. One of my friends, an ENFP, finds it rather entertaining and it serves as an unspoken explaination for most of my "odd" behavior when around him.

[shaytana]

I can't answer this question. Yes and No.
6 billion people, 16 types.
There are going to be subtypes for each type.

Almost everything in the INTP description fits me, but not completely. I am more than the description says, there is a lot more to me than 4 little letters.

it's an acronym though so it's more letters then you think!!

True, but it is still the same as saying that who you are, everything that is you, can be simplified down to 4 letters.

Not I.

[jittus rye]

True True, Meow, and Moo.

[CosmicDust]

I don't consider myself a textbook INTP primarily because I cry or otherwise display intense emotions too easily. I'm also not into chess or computers or a lot of other classic geek stuff, nor am I as high in IQ one would expect for the stereotype.

[Jezebel]

from this site: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

I : 89%
N: 67%
T: 22%
P: 56%

I think I used to be a "textbook" intp way back when I first took the test. Over the years my preferences have shifted, especially the T preference, which used to be much stronger. While I find the MBTI interesting, I don't take it very seriously and certainly wouldn't want to limit myself to its descriptions.

[jittus rye]

from this site: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

I : 89%
N: 67%
T: 22%
P: 56%

I think I used to be a "textbook" intp way back when I first took the test. Over the years my preferences have shifted, especially the T preference, which used to be much stronger. While I find the MBTI interesting, I don't take it very seriously and certainly wouldn't want to limit myself to its descriptions.

That is strength of preference, not percentage.

[Melody]

thats confusing

----------------------------
I: 698%
N: 666%
T: 826%
P: 742%

Even though these percentages are fake, they are starting to bother me. *removes them from sig*

[Jezebel]

from this site: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

I : 89%
N: 67%
T: 22%
P: 56%

I think I used to be a "textbook" intp way back when I first took the test. Over the years my preferences have shifted, especially the T preference, which used to be much stronger. While I find the MBTI interesting, I don't take it very seriously and certainly wouldn't want to limit myself to its descriptions.

That is strength of preference, not percentage.

above the numbers it says strength of the preferences percentage

[jittus rye]

That means you are 22% more thinking than feeling.

[paladinoflunaria]

Shaytana wrote:

True, but it is still the same as saying that who you are, everything that is you, can be simplified down to 4 letters.

Not I.

Haven't yet figured out that you're not special? Emotions may say otherwise, but really human beings are just machines- robots with a complex design and complex programming- but still just machines. You can think you're special, and that no one can label you, but you're only deluding yourself. It is possible that our 4 letter system isn't perfect, but it can be perfected, and even brought down to fewer letters. It's like Newspeak.

Antireconciler wrote:

paladinoflunaria, in the set "all people", feels alien
paladinoflunaria, in the set "INTP", feels alien
paladinoflunaria, in the set "textbook INTP", feels ...
paladinoflunaria feels ...

Somehow, in the long run, I don't think you're going to have much luck in this direction. Try another.

paladinoflunaria thinks, in the set of "all people," some behave a distinct way- have a few modifications in their programming
paladinoflunaria thinks, in the set of "INTP," some have different versions of programming than the original version (the definition)
paladinoflunaria thinks, in the set of "TextBook INTP," it will likely be easier to determine a pattern and find the original version of the programming-a definition without twisting
paladinoflunaria thinks, one must test truths through internalization before it is rational to project them (deductive logic is as important as inductive logic)
paladinoflunaria thinks, parallel sentence structure that doesn't do a good job of providing emphasis and that improper puncuation and mechanics in general are unamusing, etc, ad nauseam


There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

We're not testing how accurate the definition is, we're testing how accurate the people are given the premise- how faulty/not faulty/tampered/etc. their programming is.

And by the way, antireconciler, paladinoflunaria has already accepted the logic of the isolation of the individual. Feeling alien is not quite an accurate description, if you didn't figure it out already.

[Jezebel]

That means you are 22% more thinking than feeling.

I know what it means. Did you think I meant something else? I'm guessing you took it that I thought INTP = 100% and each letter was a percentage of that "whole"?

[jittus rye]

I beg to differ, humans are special, because their beliefs and experiences are different, and if one has different experiences, one has different behavior.

[SensEye]

Not textbook. I am only borderline "P".

I notice differences between me and this group in that I am not nearly as art/music/poetry inclined as most of you. I can't fathom the interest in the "...of souls!" thread for example.

[paladinoflunaria]

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/individuality.html

[jittus rye]

Yes, some people are more special than others, thanks for letting us see the light. :wink:

[shaytana]

Haven't yet figured out that you're not special? Emotions may say otherwise, but really human beings are just machines- robots with a complex design and complex programming- but still just machines. You can think you're special, and that no one can label you, but you're only deluding yourself. It is possible that our 4 letter system isn't perfect, but it can be perfected, and even brought down to fewer letters. It's like Newspeak.



Nope, haven't figured that out yet, because I am special. Just like everyone else.

edit: I posted this before I saw your link

[paladinoflunaria]

shaytana wrote:

edit: I posted this before I saw your link

I applaud thee, then.

Firechoice wrote:

Yes, some people are more special than others, thanks for letting us see the light. :wink:

Animal Farm is a good book.

[jittus rye]

Animal Farm is a good book.

Wow, I wasn't even thinking of animal farm when I said that. Maybe it is subconcious!

[Melody]

I can't fathom the interest in the "...of souls!" thread for example.
Neither can I. Is there a way to make it so that posts to a certain thread do not trigger the "new post" thing?

[antireconciler]

paladinoflunaria thinks, in the set of "all people," some behave a distinct way- have a few modifications in their programming
paladinoflunaria thinks, in the set of "INTP," some have different versions of programming than the original version (the definition)
paladinoflunaria thinks, in the set of "TextBook INTP," it will likely be easier to determine a pattern and find the original version of the programming-a definition without twisting

You intend to discover one single integrated definition of what an INTP is? Do you mean 100% I, 100% N, 100% T, and 100% P? Do you think such a person would be more fit for this world or somehow more consistent or capable or integrated? Do you find MBTI as a system somehow inherent to humans? Please understand, I ask not to challenge, but from a desire to understand.


paladinoflunaria thinks, one must test truths through internalization before it is rational to project them (deductive logic is as important as inductive logic)

It was just a feeling, and the feeling made sense. There were many things supporting it. I don't assume it's true, it's just what I think.


paladinoflunaria thinks, parallel sentence structure that doesn't do a good job of providing emphasis and that improper puncuation and mechanics in general are unamusing, etc, ad nauseam

Since it seems to annoy, I won't use it again.


There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

:D


We're not testing how accurate the definition is, we're testing how accurate the people are given the premise- how faulty/not faulty/tampered/etc. their programming is.

How is it programming, and how could you hope to extend your version of perfect code to other people to measure thier imperfection?


And by the way, antireconciler, paladinoflunaria has already accepted the logic of the isolation of the individual. Feeling alien is not quite an accurate description, if you didn't figure it out already.

No, I didn't. I still don't understand, but I will listen.

[Strephonade]

On the other hand:

"Just remember, we're all in this alone."

--Lily Tomlin

[Salad]

improper punctuation and mechanics are fun.

think of shakespeare. he even made up words.

[antireconciler]

Haven't yet figured out that you're not special? Emotions may say otherwise, but really human beings are just machines- robots with a complex design and complex programming- but still just machines. You can think you're special, and that no one can label you, but you're only deluding yourself. It is possible that our 4 letter system isn't perfect, but it can be perfected, and even brought down to fewer letters.

It can be brought down to 0 letters. Please explain your idea of personality perfection. I'm not convinced "perfection" exists outside of human abstractions, or has any meaning even in them.

[antireconciler]

improper punctuation and mechanics are fun.

think of shakespeare. he even made up words.

In the end, understanding is all that matters, however you get there.

[paladinoflunaria]

antireconciler wrote:

Please understand, I ask not to challenge, but from a desire to understand.

Truce antireconciler; I know what you're saying.

antireconciler also wrote:

Salad wrote:

improper punctuation and mechanics are fun.

think of shakespeare. he even made up words.


In the end, understanding is all that matters, however you get there.

Agreed. It's a habit to make corrections- "provider of clarity". It's also a way of keeping on my toes for my independent studies english class (where I sit in with the AP English class). I'll probably rant about said class and others later. :D


As for the programming thing, I'm coming from a mathematical perspective, and also playing advocate for the AI view of intellgence. I would say that everything has definite pattern(s), even chaos (there's math for that, too), and that causality pierces into the heart of every action. Humans take most action as a response to stimuli- they run a program or method of actions when certain conditions are met. Humans aren't as complicated as most make them out to be, and if we bog ourselves down by thinking we'll never understand, then we're less likely to understand. That's all I'm saying.

If I were alive before Socrates made his debut, the philosophies would have my name tacked on to them.

[jittus rye]

If I were alive before Socrates made his debut, the philosophies would have my name tacked on to them.

That's quite a bold statement. Some of what you've learned and what has made you into what you currently are has been influenced by Socrates. So it is unprovable. You probably would have been born in some shit place where you would have been unable to learn and influence.

[paladinoflunaria]

Good point, and it is impossible for me to prove it to you, but I'd say that in my days before formal education, and even in formal education, before I knew anything about Socrates, I had the same method of thinking and views on absolute truth. Of course, I was being light-hearted either way.

Also, Socrates, like most of us (most probably), was an INTP. Just because he debuted the first doesn't mean no one else discovered it. Take Newton, Leibniz, and calculus for example. I think it's being debated whether another person also discovered calculus.

Great minds think alike. They must be on to something...

[Star Cannon]

I am a text book INTP. I hope to transcend being a certain 'type'. Now that I think about it, it seems depressing that humans have to have 'types'.
Why can't we just be ourselves and let others be? A scewy world we seem to live in...

Star Cannon

[CosmicDust]

[quote=Star Cannon]
Sometimes wonder as to what categories animals would construct for the classification of humans. .... :mellow:
Depends on the animal. An animal in a nature preserve might divide them into the following classes:

Gawkers/Paparazzi - the ones piled into those strange artificial beasts
Idiots who leave their food around for us to steal
Scary ones with thunder sticks that cause sudden death
Less-scary ones that knock us out and then wake us up with these weird metal thingies on us in some new part of the park

[paladinoflunaria]

We should ask the dolphins.

Star Cannon wrote:

I am a text book INTP. I hope to transcend being a certain 'type'. Now that I think about it, it seems depressing that humans have to have 'types'.
Why can't we just be ourselves and let others be? A scewy world we seem to live in...

What the hell?! Do you have dominant Ti or not. Do you like systems- taxonomies- or not? Isn't it logical to divide and classify? Will people shut the hell up about wanting to be special and different? Seriously. I'm a 5w4 and the 4 is just that- a wing. The investigator comes in and sees what's going on, while the individualist has its roots in fear and craving. Of course I test as a straight 5 too, but that's not the point (so why am I even saying this?). Ti, Ti, Ti! I love Ti. Isn't Ti the textbook IXTP's best friend?

Nothing personal Star Cannon. You're just the "straw that broke the horse's back," so to speak.

[antireconciler]

"We rise in glory as we sink in pride." -- Andrew Young

"Pride perceiving humility honorable, often borrows her cloak." -- Thomas Fuller

[Avengardh]

I am not too really sure that anyone can be so textbook...but anything is possible.

I range between P and J, but I don't think I could be anything else but INTP...it's my decided choice of being, because it's the one I find myself expressing everytime.

If I try to change it, I get screwed up.

~*Aven*~

[antireconciler]

As for the programming thing, I'm coming from a mathematical perspective, and also playing advocate for the AI view of intellgence. I would say that everything has definite pattern(s), even chaos (there's math for that, too), and that causality pierces into the heart of every action. Humans take most action as a response to stimuli- they run a program or method of actions when certain conditions are met. Humans aren't as complicated as most make them out to be, and if we bog ourselves down by thinking we'll never understand, then we're less likely to understand. That's all I'm saying.

Perhaps.

Well, then I think the best place to start is with yourself. You're trying to discover a rational explaination for everything you do, right? I know few people who are not curious about themselves, or at least do not wish they knew themselves better. I find that what keeps people from deeper understanding of themselves is that desire itself, that desparation. Those who desire to understand themselves find thier answers, and they cling to them. They needed them in the first place, and now they've found something to hold on to. They use it to shield themselves from the fear of not knowing who they are. Curiousity about oneself is different. Curiousity means a person searches with an open mind, accepting whatever they might find, yet not attaching themselves to it because they don't need an answer. For open minds, it's okay to not know. They do not search for answers to quiet the storms in their minds, to run from themselves. They explore out of a love of life. They are children at heart.

If you claim you are a member of the latter, please calmly explain the anger you have displayed to those who have given you feedback, perhaps not to us, but at least to yourself.

[Claverhouse]

Ah, the joys of anomie.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[shaytana]

We should ask the dolphins.

Star Cannon wrote:

I am a text book INTP. I hope to transcend being a certain 'type'. Now that I think about it, it seems depressing that humans have to have 'types'.
Why can't we just be ourselves and let others be? A scewy world we seem to live in...

What the hell?! Do you have dominant Ti or not. Do you like systems- taxonomies- or not? Isn't it logical to divide and classify? Will people shut the hell up about wanting to be special and different? Seriously. I'm a 5w4 and the 4 is just that- a wing. The investigator comes in and sees what's going on, while the individualist has its roots in fear and craving. Of course I test as a straight 5 too, but that's not the point (so why am I even saying this?). Ti, Ti, Ti! I love Ti. Isn't Ti the textbook IXTP's best friend?

Nothing personal Star Cannon. You're just the "straw that broke the horse's back," so to speak.

Of course, best friend perhaps, but not my only friend. I try to get my friends to work together as much as possible. Afterall, what is my Ti without my Ne.

[Star Cannon]

INTPs are different from one another just there are infinite variations in DNA. There. So comparing my DNA with yours I can conclude, that _if_ you are an INTP, we are different from each other. (Does this help anyone in their quest to 'know thyself?')

So yes, I am an INTP. Yes, I use my intuition. By the content you can obviously see that I am different from everyone else because, looking above, you can see that that everyone elses writing style is their own. To be quite honest, I am very comfortable in my own skin. So: :nerd: "nyeh!"


Edit: *near infinite, ahem.

[Melody]

I don't think there are infinite variations in DNA.

Also, the human genome (whatever that is) is actually not very large, especially compared to how large we thought it was before the genome project thingie.

[CosmicDust]

There aren't infinite variations in DNA, but there are countless variations in how the brain building process and the little details of life turn out.

[Melody]

<_<

[HairlessBluetick]

I'm pretty textbook in the ways I view and react to things, but I'm not very "culturally" INTP -- I'm not too into Monty Python, math, etc... Like them, but not so much as many INTPs.

[paladinoflunaria]

Star Cannon wrote:

Edit: *near infinite, ahem.
There's no such thing as "near infinite."

HairlessBluetick wrote:

I'm pretty textbook in the ways I view and react to things, but I'm not very "culturally" INTP -- I'm not too into Monty Python, math, etc... Like them, but not so much as many INTPs.

I don't think math is cultural.

For antireconciler, I skimmed yours. Looks good, and I'll come back to it. Not right now, though.

[paladinoflunaria]

Antireconciler, will you please elaborate on what you've said? You are projecting claims. Can you show me the logic you used to arrive at them?

[antireconciler]

Antireconciler, will you please elaborate on what you've said? You are projecting claims. Can you show me the logic you used to arrive at them?

What I projected is what I saw when I looked. I just tried to describe what I was seeing. I do not know the logic I used. I tried to take what I saw and work backwards, but what I described was as far as I could get, because everything works backward to a similar structure, which develops only as more stuff is linked backward to it (i.e. integrated with it). If you know a specific point that does not seem to follow, and I haven't made you think I'm illogical and crazy yet, ask away. I just can't do anything with such a nonspecific question. I've tried to model something where models have little use. It can only be seen for one's self. Describe the smell of a rose to someone who's never smelled a rose ...

Distilled version of what I just wrote: "Good questions. You have me at a loss."

[HairlessBluetick]

HairlessBluetick wrote:

I'm pretty textbook in the ways I view and react to things, but I'm not very "culturally" INTP -- I'm not too into Monty Python, math, etc... Like them, but not so much as many INTPs.

I don't think math is cultural.


No, but interest in it can be.

[Melody]

Hmm, this is a good place to advertise my silly comic.

http://chu.keenspace.com/d/20040809.html

It doesn't really explain anything, but what the guy in the car (me ^.^) is saying is that math is in our heads and does not exist beyond that.

[Claverhouse]

HairlessBluetick wrote:

I'm pretty textbook in the ways I view and react to things, but I'm not very "culturally" INTP -- I'm not too into Monty Python, math, etc... Like them, but not so much as many INTPs.

I don't think math is cultural.


No, but interest in it can be.

I can never recommend reading The Decline of the West too often. In the first part, which led to some skipping by readers including me, Spengler argues that mathematics are different for, and differently perceived and used by each Great Culture. Dunno what he's on about there: maths bores me rigid.

Still, he was generally right about most stuff.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Vagabond]

I am half an INTJ. I relate equally to both types, although I am more of a P in everyday's routine.

[Johnny]

Ah, the joys of anomie.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Yes, and on good days it becomes a springboard for personal growth and development. On bad days, it's just painful...

But there it is. It's just too darn limiting to filter ourselves constantly through a Ie/Ti lens at a constant rate and neglect the rest of us...including any other tool at our disposal that didn't get added to the typology game. Sometimes it's as Antireconciler allows himself to offer: Today, I'm NOT a computer program going along about my business regardless.

:zzz: :blink: :nerd: :devil: :huh: :( :cheers: :D B) :zzz:






:ph34r:

[Miss Padfoot]

Actually, Paladin, I agree with you on most of this. I'm guessing you "believe" (for lack of a better term) in determinism, and that what appears to be free will is a series of reactions in our brain. I do too, though of course I try not to think about it too much.

I am a bit of a textbook INTP. I'm sort of close to ENTP-ness, but either way I have the same functions. But this poll question of yours seems like it's sort of unnecessary and has elitist overtones - there are INTPs, and then there are the "serious" INTPs. I think there are so few of us, we might as well take everyone's tendencies into consideration when trying to figure out "what INTPs do." Including non-textbook INTPs.

[antireconciler]

Actually, Paladin, I agree with you on most of this. I'm guessing you "believe" (for lack of a better term) in determinism, and that what appears to be free will is a series of reactions in our brain. I do too, though of course I try not to think about it too much.

I used to believe this, and it might still be true, but there is the issue of quantum mechanics and true randomness. I don't claim significant knowledge in this area. Determinism is useless, as I see it, because you cannot know everything, and approximations simply won't do. Then there is the related problem concerning the observer's influence. From a "it is deterministic even though we can't determine it" standpoint, it is essentially free will.

[CosmicDust]

Natural laws still govern how quantum things behave, although you can't tell for sure which measurable value for something they're tweaked from their in-between states. Between this stuff and the "chaos" that seeps into complex determininstic systems, it's pretty clear to me that we're not clockwork. I think the will is caused, but at least "de-facto" unpredictable to some degree.

[Melody]

I saw a recent popular science book cover that had two rules for quantum physics. They were something like:

1. Thingies are not defined until we measure them.
2. Forget rule one.

I agree with rule 2. I think the "things don't exist until we measure them" tomfoolery is baloney. In fact, I don't know much of the quantum theory, but my guess is it does not agree with rule 1, either. All it probably is is the uncertainty principle and people have taken it to mean too much, the silly bastards.

[CosmicDust]

I agree that rule #1 is crap. I believe quantum thingies have their own definition, just not one that lends itself well to our analysis. They don't have an undefined position and momentum, but a position/momentum that's doing its own thing until we screw with it. It's not some kind of magical trick of the power of the mind that brings these things into being, as I think the insides of our machines are out of the direct causal access range of the human mind (stray dynamically coupled electron pairs with one in the mind and the other in the machine notwithstanding). It's our measurement apparatus being made of quantum thingies that interact with other quantum thingies in a way that bumps them into a nice neat specific state we can measure!

[Claverhouse]

Schrodinger:

I think I've said before, here or earlier, that the experiment is invalidated because the Cat himself or herself is also an observer and thus able to determine the result. Not to mention that even as object the silliest creature alive would know whether he or she is alive or dead.

As Melody implies: Overthinking.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[greenintp]

YES :rofl:

[INTrPosr]

Don't mean to tear a rift in the forum, but I'm curious as to who considers themself a "textbook" INTP. Some of us are more INTP than others- that's not really arguable.

I am unsure what point of reference you are using to ask this question. Are you asking whether others are imbalanced, as a result of high dichotomy preferences? If so, I usually score high on I, but am getting better at utilizing my E. I am unsure what it will take for me to balance my S/N. I am doing well with T/F and need to work on my J/P.

[t]

Don't mean to tear a rift in the forum, but I'm curious as to who considers themself a "textbook" INTP. Some of us are more INTP than others- that's not really arguable.

I am unsure what point of reference you are using to ask this question. Are you asking whether others are imbalanced, as a result of high dichotomy preferences? If so, I usually score high on I, but am getting better at utilizing my E. I am unsure what it will take for me to balance my S/N. I am doing well with T/F and need to work on my J/P.

i'm pretty much in the same position as you. using simply my natural tendencies, i am a textbook INTP. however, i've worked on my social skills, and though extroversion & sociability are two different things, if you met me, i'd probably appear more extroverted than a textbook INTP. i also tend to have the chameleon (sp?) thing down and though i've read that is an ability of an INTP, i'm sure someone would argue my credibility. I also try and work on developing my F b/c the not using any feelings in daily life & then having an overflow of them once i finally let someone in by way of a romantic relationship is proving to be detrimental. however, this is proving to be really difficult. i'm too much of a thinker.

personally, i didn't even want to answer this question because i don't feel as though i need to prove my INTP-ness to anyone... but it does make for interesting discussion.

[Arioch]

Hmm.. I'm not answering. Some have said I was a somewhat.. unique INTP so perhaps it should be answered as "no" but I believe that the "textbook INTP" would be the INTP seen through a American cultural lens.

So on that princible I'm not answering

[s]

I am fairly textbook.

[Werdna]

Textbook INTP... No I don't think I am. Not intellectual enough, for one. But I do have the nerdishness, an above-average IQ, an interest in computers, I generally find reality uninteresting, and at the tender age of 10 I remember deciding that most people are idiots.
I don't think it's very INTP to say that a certain letter-combination can decide exactly what a person is. Even if we are nothing but biochemical machines we are still very complex machines. We all have things that makes us unique. Following MBTI slavishly is more of an INTJ thing, the 'P' is for pcriticism.
And actually wanting to be a textbook INTP sounds as if you want to belong to a group, that implies being social. Which isn't very INTP so i definitely have to say no. Because i want to be INTP.

I still think most people are idiots by the way. But when I was 11 I decided to include myself.

[Laeskis]

I don't want to participate. I've enough trouble rationalizing why the hell I'm allowing myself to be type cast, and why I'm engaged in group activities by posting on the forum.
I don't think I want to be typed any further...too much is too much.

[INTrPosr]

Textbook INTP... No I don't think I am. Not intellectual enough, for one. But I do have the nerdishness, an above-average IQ, an interest in computers, I generally find reality uninteresting, and at the tender age of 10 I remember deciding that most people are idiots.

Now that sounds text book INTP to me.:cheers: Although INTPs can put on the facade of being self confident, we secretly have serious doubts about ourselves. Moreso, INTPs doubt and question their intellect, as opposed to the other NTs. Yeah the above average IQ, yet wanting to remain inconspicous about it, and by golly we all knew a bunch of idiots when growing up.

[Dunearhp]

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the library.

I found myself accosted by a flying saucer. At least it sort of reminded me of a flying saucer. A more accurate description would be to say that it looked like a Neenish tart, four feet in diameter.
It landed a few feet away. The two different coloured panels on the top split apart as I approached. A round platform rose out of the disc with a three inch high yellow alien in its centre. It was holding something the shape of a megaphone. I never noticed its mouth move, but I heard it say something along the lines of:
"Good morning. My name is Flimjam and I am here as a representative of the Golgachem galactic census and market research body. Would you have a moment to answer a few questions?"

Wanting to be polite, I said "Sure, I have a couple of minutes."
"Thank you." it said brightly. "Would you spend in excess of 400 Gorkmids on interstellar travel in the period of one of your solar years?"
"No, I've never really had the chance. What is a Gorkmid?"
"What brand of lubricant do you use in your personal hovercraft?"
"Hovercraft? I don't know. My car uses 20W-50, but I can't remember what brand I used last."
"Thank you. Would you say that you are a textbook example of your species?"
"Who wrote the textbook? I don't know. My dads car uses 10W-40, if that helps."
"No, not particularly. It is clear that I am wasting your time. Thank you and good bye."
It took less than ten seconds for the top panels to fold together and the craft to fly out of visual range.

On the way home I bought a Neenish tart, and some motor oil.

[HeyBooU]

I don't want to participate. I've enough trouble rationalizing why the hell I'm allowing myself to be type cast, and why I'm engaged in group activities by posting on the forum.
I don't think I want to be typed any further...too much is too much.

I am the same way. In fact, after I found out that I was INTP and did research on the topic to know I was, the whole thing angered me in a way. I long ago accepted being alone and was sure no one even had the same thought process as me. I found it interesting that so many INTP's wanted and were excited to find others that were the same. This desire strikes me as a desire to fit in. Maybe I am just new to the idea of this whole type thing.

[Boozer]

While we are (mostly) all INTP's who value our individuality more than most people, people are still social creatures. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have zero desire to socialize.

Most of us have grown up feeling alone, so the sudden discovery of so many similar people can be exciting, if not overwhelming.

[greenintp]

Out of boredom...
I did the test again on similarminds.com

I swing both ways on P & J. This actually happen most (maybe even all) of the time when I do the tests.

However, when I read the many descriptions of INTP and INTJ's I find I do not fit / relate to much of the "J" stuff. How then can the test results show a 50/50 split?

[Werdna]

Out of boredom...
I did the test again on similarminds.com

I swing both ways on P & J. This actually happen most (maybe even all) of the time when I do the tests.

However, when I read the many descriptions of INTP and INTJ's I find I do not fit / relate to much of the "J" stuff. How then can the test results show a 50/50 split?I also have a weak P. Also did different tests a few times, once it said I was INTJ. I changed the answer to one question and it became INTP.
I feel the description of INTP suits me a lot better. I prefer being open-minded and I'm not especially orderly, though I sometimes would like to be. Perhaps my dad who is ISTJ is responsible for my Jishness. We may be born into a certain type and then changed by the environment, society, parents etc... but we're still P at heart. Or something like that.

[Arioch]

I don't want to participate. I've enough trouble rationalizing why the hell I'm allowing myself to be type cast, and why I'm engaged in group activities by posting on the forum.
I don't think I want to be typed any further...too much is too much.

I am the same way. In fact, after I found out that I was INTP and did research on the topic to know I was, the whole thing angered me in a way. I long ago accepted being alone and was sure no one even had the same thought process as me. I found it interesting that so many INTP's wanted and were excited to find others that were the same. This desire strikes me as a desire to fit in. Maybe I am just new to the idea of this whole type thing.

I was just bored by the thought of being so excited to find "others like onesself". Sure INTP's share a lot of things together but there's a certain limit to it.

Be content with onesself no matter how common or otherwise you are.
I don't consider myself to be the same as others on the forum INTP or not. Our lives are too unique for that

I am more then a certain perspective on the world and a few scattered idiosyncrasies.

P.(m).S. ^_^ there might be some irony to be found here. That the textbook INTP might consider himself to be very "un-textbook"

[greenintp]

That's it I'm a "P" at heart! :)



Out of boredom...
I did the test again on similarminds.com

I swing both ways on P & J. This actually happen most (maybe even all) of the time when I do the tests.

However, when I read the many descriptions of INTP and INTJ's I find I do not fit / relate to much of the "J" stuff. How then can the test results show a 50/50 split?I also have a weak P. Also did different tests a few times, once it said I was INTJ. I changed the answer to one question and it became INTP.
I feel the description of INTP suits me a lot better. I prefer being open-minded and I'm not especially orderly, though I sometimes would like to be. Perhaps my dad who is ISTJ is responsible for my Jishness. We may be born into a certain type and then changed by the environment, society, parents etc... but we're still P at heart. Or something like that.

[Almaviva]

I agree that rule #1 is crap. I believe quantum thingies have their own definition, just not one that lends itself well to our analysis. They don't have an undefined position and momentum, but a position/momentum that's doing its own thing until we screw with it. It's not some kind of magical trick of the power of the mind that brings these things into being, as I think the insides of our machines are out of the direct causal access range of the human mind (stray dynamically coupled electron pairs with one in the mind and the other in the machine notwithstanding). It's our measurement apparatus being made of quantum thingies that interact with other quantum thingies in a way that bumps them into a nice neat specific state we can measure!


This is months old, but this understanding of QM is naive. The uncertainty principle isn't just a statement about our limitations of measurement, it's right at the foundations of QM itself.

For example: In an atom, why don't electrons just zoom to the protons in the nucleus (positive attracts negative) and stay there? The answer is that if they did, their location would be pinned down to the nucleus, so their velocity would be uncertain enough that they couldn't stay there after all. Quantum mechanics describes how this uncertainty behaves, and it's quite a lot deeper than just measurement error.

[Melody]

You are right. I think.

My focus was that our use of statistical methods means not that the physical reality is statistical. That is what I believe would be ludacris. Quantum mechanics is just a mathematical model. As I have said a few times before, mathematics are entirely human. The real world gives not a care for them.

So I have a stable distrust of all math and physics. ahahahaha I'm so rebellious.