Cutting to the core

[composer]

I was thinking about times when somebody said something to me that cut through the Ne/Ti axis and was like a slap in the face. Usually what they said bothered me, until I realized the truth of it.

For example, my Dad once (amiably) said that I wasn't that interested in people. He didn't mean it in a mean way at all, but at the time it was like a slap in the face. "I like people, don't I? I'm not a horrible old hermit ..."

Years later I realized that while I care deeply about humanity, I don't care for individuals all that much, and certainly don't enjoy spending a lot of time around them. My immediate family and one or two friends, thats all I need or want. So despite the personal negative connotations I had for what he said it was absolutely right.

Another example of when this happened with a different result, a friend once described me as a 'type a' personality. Probably just a poor choice of words, he didn't mean anything by it, but my reaction was disappointment that he misunderstood me enough to think that was an accurate label. Better is that, typical INTP I suppose, I refuse anything less than high competence in all areas that are important to me. This is a case where somebody said something that didn't cut to the core, as I instantly analyzed and deflected it as inaccurate.

[gator]

I meant to reply earlier but though I could remember feeling this way sometimes, I couldn't really remember what had triggered it.

One event was after rowing practice one day when I ended up alone in the parking lot with one of the guys from my team. We were talking about our coaches and some of the people on our team when suddenly he said that he didn't like the way that people treated me, that I got ignored a lot. It hurt to hear that and my instinct was to close up and deny it and make excuses for the people who were treating me like shit. I felt really exposed because he'd hit on something that I'd felt for a while but hadn't put into words. It was a vague feeling of alienation and discontent with the state of a lot of my friendships and relationships.

I've never made friends easily so it's turned me into a bit of a joiner. I have a habit of jumping in and really investing myself into sports, clubs, associations or whatever, being a good, dedicated member in the hopes that I'll make friends. But what usually seems to happen is that it becomes a substitute for an actual social life. I immerse myself in activities and pretending to myself that seeing the same people regularly mean that they are my friends.

At rowing I was never tall enough or fit enough to make it into the A boat so I got overlooked a lot. The coaches kind of ignored/tolerated me while the A boat formed their own clique at school and did lots of stuff together outside of practice that I wasn't really included in. I'd been on the team longer than anyone else and I made myself useful rigging boats for people and stuff. I kept telling myself that it was just because I physically couldn't perform to the level that they wanted me to so it was alright.

But when he mentioned it it reminded me that I actually did feel shafted, and it reminded me of the fact that this is a regular thing for me, that it's happened multiple times before and that I allow it to happen. It hurt a lot.

[Arachne]

I had a similar moment when my high school biology teacher called me out for rationalizing why I was under performing in another class. I was embarrassed but, yes, I later realized that I was rationalizing. That moment really raised my self-awareness... and self-doubt. After all, as a young INTP, I believed in my own objectivity.

[PenguinHunter]

I was expecting this thread to be about one of the following:

a) The fabulous movie The Core complete with straight-faced rationalization of the science behind the film.

b) Exploring future drilling technology, specifically touching on the world's deepest holes and machines with giant drills that will one day carry people deep into the crust of the Earth and possibly allow for underground cities.

c) Hypothesizing a device that could cut through hunks of bullshit to see if there was anything useful inside. A complex lie detector, if you will, that would save the world billions of man hours every year, to which I would wittily reply, "This device already exists. It's called an INTP."

d) Apples.

Just kidding about the last two. I needed to fill out my list.

So, to cut to the. . . chase. . . Perhaps we could combine your thread and my expectations. Which character in The Core do you think was best able to consistently and succinctly provide insight and analysis around which the other crew members could rally? Do you think that being locked in a ridiculous machine headed towards the Earth's core would allow you to connect more deeply with and provide insight to the people around you, or would such constant proximity and stress actually inhibit the gut-analytical process? What sorts of circumstances and personality traits make a person uniquely able to divine some essential truth about you, or you for them?

[mthomps]

Uhhhggg. Man. I once had a close family member describe me as just that. "Type A personality" Ugghhhhhhhh. He was and still is a band mate of mine, my cousin actually. I sat him down and made him read articles about MBTI and shit. That was over 4 years ago but to this day I would do the same thing, even though I blatantly try to not show my natural behavior around the social. The people I like, I let them know, look dude, I'm fucked up through your eyes, that is just me.

No, I do not have many friends.

[ObtainGnosis]

I've got a few pages of text to quote from Karen Horney that I think pertains to INTP tendencies in particular. The whole book has been cutting me to the core as I've been reading it. Keep in mind that this is antiquated psychological theory. Hopefully it will make sense out of context. This is meant to describe a particular neurotic solution to one's life problems that is not MBTI type-specific, that is withdrawing from others in order to establish absolute independence as a means to resolve inner conflicts. But as far as I'm concerned, this seems to describe a lot of INTP psychodynamics. See what you think.


Excerpt from Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth in the chapter "Resignation: The Appeal of Freedom":

"....Is there not perhaps an equivalent appeal of some more positive aim in the resigned solution? When questions like these arise during analytic work it is usually helpful to listen attentively to what the patient himself has to say about it. There is usually something he has told us which we have not taken seriously enough. Let us do the same thing here, and examine more closely how our type looks at himself. We have seen that, like anybody else, he rationalizes and embellishes his needs so that they all appear as superior attitudes. But in this regard we have to make a distinction. Sometimes he obviously makes a virtue out of a need, such as presenting his lack of striving in terms of being above competition or accounting for his inertia by his scorn of the sweat of hard work. And as the analysis proceeds, these glorifications usually drop out without much talk about them. But there are others which are not discarded as easily because they apparently have a real meaning for him. And these concern all that he says about independence and freedom. In fact most of the basic characteristics which we have regarded from the viewpoint of resignation also make sense when seen from the viewpoint of freedom. Any stronger attachment would curtail his freedom. So would needs. He would be dependent upon such needs and they would easily make him dependent upon others too. If he devoted his energies to one pursuit, he would not be free to do many other things in which he might be interested. Particularly, his sensitivity to coercion appears in a new light. He wants to be free and hence will not tolerate pressure.

Accordingly, when in analysis this subject comes up for discussion, the patient goes into a vigorous defense. Is it not natural for man to want freedom? Does not anybody become listless when he does things under pressure? Did not his aunt or his friend become colorless or lifeless, because they always did what was expected of them? Does the analyst want to domesticate him, to force him into a pattern, so that he will be like one house in a row of settlement houses, each indistinguishable from the others? He hates regimentation. He never goes to the Zoo because he simply cannot stand seeing animals in a cage. He wants to do what he pleases when he pleases.

Let us look at some of his arguments, leaving others for later. We learn from them that freedom means to him doing what he likes. The analyst observes here an obvious flaw. Since the patient has done his best to freeze his wishes, he simply does not know what he wants. And as a result he often does nothing, or nothing that amounts to anything. This, however, does not disturb him because he seems to see freedom primarily in terms of no interference by others--whether people or institutions. Whatever makes this attitude so important, he means to defend it to the last ditch. Granted that his idea of freedom seems again to be a negative one--freedom from and not freedom for--it does have an appeal for him which (to this degree) is absent in the other [neurotic] solutions. The self-effacing person is rather afraid of freedom, because of his needs for attachment and dependence. The expansive type, with his craving for mastery of this or that sort, tends to scorn this idea of freedom.

How can we account for this appeal of freedom? Which are the inner necessities from which it arises? What is its meaning? In order to arrive at some understanding we must go back to the early history of those people who later on solve their problems by resignation. There were often cramping influences against which the child could not rebel openly, either because they were too strong or too intangible. There may have been so tight a family atmosphere, so closed an emotional corporation that it did not leave room for his individual ways and threatened to crush him. On the other hand he may have received affection, but in a way that more repelled than warmed him. There may have been for instance a parent who was too egocentric to have any understanding of the child's needs yet made great demands for the child to understand him or give him emotional support. Or he may have had a parent so erratic in his mood-swings that he gave effusive demonstrative affection at one time and at others could scold or beat him in a fit of temper without any reason that the child could understand. In short, there was an environment which made explicit and implicit demands for him to fit in this way or that way and threatened to engulf him without sufficient regard for his individuality, not to speak of encouraging his personal growth.

So the child is torn for a longer or shorter time between futile attempts to get affection and interest and resenting the bonds put around him. He solves this early conflict by withdrawing from others. By putting emotional distance between himself and others, he sets his conflict out of operation. He no longer wants others' affection nor does he want to fight them. Hence he is no longer torn by contradictory feelings toward them and manages to get along with them on a fairly even keel. Moreover, by withdrawing into a world of his own, he saves his individuality from being altogether cramped and engulfed. His early detachment thus not only serves his integration, but has a most significant positive meaning: the keeping intact of his inner life. The freedom from bondage gives him the possibility of inner independence. But he must do more than put a check on his feelings for or against others. He must also retract all those wishes and needs which would require others for their fulfillment: his natural needs for understanding, for sharing experiences, for affection, sympathy, protection. This, however, has far-reaching implications. It means that he must keep his joys, his pains, his sorrows, his fears to himself. He often makes, for instance, pathetic and desperate efforts to conquer his fears--of the dark, of dogs, etc.--without letting anybody know about them. He trains himself (automatically) not only not to show suffering but also not to feel it. He does not want sympathy or help, not only because he has reasons to suspect their genuineness but because even if they are temporarily given they have become alarm signals for threatening bondage. Over and beyond putting a lid on these needs, he feels it safer not to let anybody know that anything matters to him lest his wishes either be frustrated or used as a means to make him dependent. And so the general retraction of all wishes, so characteristic of the process of resignation, begins....The fewer wishes he actually has, the safer he is in his retreat, the more difficult it will be for anybody to have a hold on him.

The resulting picture so far is not yet resignation, but it contains the germs from which it may develop. Even if the condition remained unchanged, it involves grave dangers for future growth. We cannot grow in a vacuum, without closeness to and friction with other human beings. But the condition can hardly remain static. Unless favorable circumstances change it for the better, the process grows by its own momentum, in vicious circles--as we have seen in other neurotic developments. We have already mentioned one of these circles. To maintain detachment, it is necessary for a person to put a check on wishes and strivings. The retraction of wishes, however, is double edged in its effect. It does make him more independent of others but it also weakens him. It saps his vitality and maims his sense of direction. He has less to set against the wishes and expectations of others. He must be doubly vigilant against any influence or interference. To use a good expression of Harry Stack Sullivan's, he must "elaborate his distance machinery."

The main reinforcements of the early development come from the intrapsychic processes. The very needs which drive others on the search for glory operate here too. His early detachment removes his conflicts with others, if he can carry it through consistently. But the reliability of his solution depends upon the retraction of wishes, and at an early age this process is fluctuating: it has not yet matured into a determined attitude. He still wants more things from life than is good for his peace of mind. When sufficiently tempted, he may for instance be drawn into a close relationship. Hence, his conflicts are easily mobilized and he needs more integration. But the early development leaves him not only divided but also alienated from himself, lacking in self-confidence and feeling unequipped for actual life. He can deal with others only when at a safe emotional distance; thrown into closer contact, he is inhibited in addition to being handicapped by his recoil from fighting. Hence he too is driven to find an answer to all these needs, in self-idealization. He may try to realize ambitions in actuality, but for many reasons in himself tends to give up the pursuit in the face of difficulties. His idealized image, chiefly, is a glorification of the needs developed. It is a composite of self-sufficiency, independence, self-contained serenity, freedom from desires and passions, stoicism, and fairness. Fairness for him is less a glorification of vindictiveness (as is the "justice" of the aggressive type) than an idealization of noncommitment and of not infringing on anybody's rights.

The shoulds corresponding to such an image bring him into a new danger. While originally he had to protect his inner self against the outside world, he now must protect it against this much more formidable inner tyranny. The outcome depends on the degree of inner aliveness he has safeguarded so far. If it is strong and he is, as it were, unconsciously determined to preserve it come hell or high water, he can still maintain some of it, although only at the price of enforcing the restrictions we discussed at the beginning--only at the cost of resigning from active living, of checking his drives toward self-realization.

There is no clinical evidence pointing to the inner dictates being more stringent here than in other types of neurosis. The difference lies rather in his chafing more under them because of his very need for freedom. He tries to cope with them in part by externalizing them. Because of his taboos on aggression, he can do so only in a passive way--which means that the expectations of others, or what he feels as such, acquire the character of commands to be obeyed without question. Moreover he is convinced that people would coldly turn against him if he did not comply with their expectations. In essence this means that he has not only externalized his shoulds but also his self-hate. Others would turn as sharply against him as he would himself for not measuring up to his shoulds. And because this anticipation of hostility is an externalization it cannot be remedied by experiences to the contrary. A patient for instance may have had a long experience with the analyst's patience and understanding and yet, under duress, may feel that the analyst would drop him at a moment's notice in case of open opposition.

Hence his original sensitivity to outside pressure is greatly reinforced. We understand now why he keeps experiencing external coercion, even though the latter environment may exert very little pressure. In addition the externalization of his shoulds, while relieving inner tension, brings a new conflict into his life. He should comply with the expectations of others; he should not hurt their feelings; he must appease their anticipated hostility--but he also should maintain his independence. This conflict is reflected in his ambivalent way of responding to others. In many variations it is a curious mixture of compliance and defiance. He may for instance politely comply with a request but forget about it or procrastinate in doing it. The forgetting may reach such disturbing proportions that he can keep a fair order in his life only by the help of a notebook in which he jots down appointments or jobs to be done. Or he may go through the motions of complying with the wishes of others but sabotage them in spirit, without in the least being aware of doing so. In analysis for instance he may comply with the obvious rules, such as being on time or saying what is on his mind, but assimilate so little of what is discussed that the work is rendered futile.

It is unavoidable that these conflicts make for a strain in his associations with others. He may at times feel this strain consciously. But, whether or not he is aware of it, it does reinforce his tendency to withdraw from others.

The passive resistance which he sets against the expectations of others also operates in regard to those shoulds which are not externalized. The mere feeling that he should do something is often sufficient to make him listless. This unconscious sit-down strike would not be so important if it were restricted to activities which he at bottom dislikes, such as participating in social gatherings, writing certain letters, or paying his bills, as the case may be. But the more radically he has eliminated personal wishes the more anything he does--good, bad, or indifferent--may register as something he should do: brushing his teeth, meals, or having sexual relations with a woman. Everything then meets with a silent resistance, resulting in a pervasive inertia. Activities therefore are restricted to a minimum or, more frequently, are performed under a strain. Hence he is unproductive, tires easily, or suffers from a chronic fatigue."

[Ptah]

I can't say I've ever experienced such a thing (not from words said or deeds done by another person, anyhow).

People can only "get to you" proportional to the extent you care about them (and/or what they say), so there's that. Of the people I do care about, I care about them somewhat because they don't go around saying things prone to upset me.

[Ferrus]

Down the road, not across the street.

[Ptah]

Down the road, not across the street.

All the same, to the extent you are consistent with yourself.

[Polemarch]

All the same, to the extent you are consistent with yourself.

When's version 1.3 coming out?

[Ptah]

When's version 1.3 coming out?

Sooner than version 2.

[ObtainGnosis]

I think this didn't strike a chord because it's not an obvious characterization. What she's describing in typical psychoanalytic fashion is the unconscious factors in the withdrawal from people. We want to glorify our independence from others as INTPs, but to the degree that we're honest, this may just be one of various artificial attempts to pull one over on the universe and life itself. How easy it would be if freedom from external influence, withdrawal from external obligation, and building our own private mental Idaho were the answer to all human problems. I feel an inability at times to distinguish from a healthy INTP need to be alone and a myopic and delusive approach to resolving the internal conflicts of life through a single behavioral solution. Likely, a deranged sense of intellectual superiority or pride isolates itself because being subjected to the criticism of others calls its validity into question.

Ooorr....nobody gives a fuck to wade through all that convoluted mess just to understand the small relation I see in it to the forum topic. Sorry to waste your time. :facepalm: