There's no INTP without Ti and no Ti without knowledge/intelligence.

[Perseus]

Originally Posted by Tlatoani

As I see it Ti is a filter for the information we receive, Ti takes the idea or information and analyzes it with skepticism comparing it with what we already know is truth so that we see if the new information fits the framework or not, it also analyzes it with pure logic, finding if the new idea/information contradicts itself or contradicts another axiom of logic.

But when a self proclaimed INTP is too stupid(lacking the intelligence to apply logic) or too ignorant (not having the means to compare the new information with previous known knowledge) to analyze something properly, then it's as if he didn't have Ti in the first place.

He may receive the information and accept it without doubting it for a second eliminating the purpose of Ti as a filter.

Then it doesn't matter if someone has the tendency to analyze everything, if there's no intelligence and knowledge, Ti doesn't work.

That's why Intelligence and Knowledge is a requirement for INTPs and no INTP can exist without it.

Very ingenious. Very INTJ. The Perseus 384 System does not demand that Thinking be the leading for process for INTPs. It may be so in practice, but this may not be true to type.

Perseus also correlates Thinking with the IQ Test, rather the basic type T allocation indicates the potential for thinking.
The Perseus system also equates Inutition with Knowledge or the potential to acquire knowledge.


My personality is a definite INTP or PNIT rather, but NT is not the leading process. I am either NP Questor or NP Psychedelic by natuural type. Job roles may demand different behaviour.

The INTJ (NT leader) uses the "amazing" reductive method. He is not a TP Projector.

[Verdant Hollow]

Jorge, could you please post in English. I can use Google Translate, but I don't trust its accuracy... sorry

Here Tlatoani, I'll give a crack at why your statement is wrong

Say you have a person. That person is dumb as a brick, but tests as INTP. Now we have an issue. Either the person tested wrong, or they really are INTP.

If they are INTP, then your statement about knowledge being necessary is wrong. Are you saying that all dumb INTPs test wrong?

I'd contend that saying "all dumb INTPs test wrong" is incorrect. As thewindlistens pointed out, Ti is a process. What goes in your machine doesn't affect the nature of the machine. It's the process of make decisions through Ti that is necessary.

I'm also confused... if they use Ti, but you don't consider them INTP, then what are they? This conflicts with MBTI theory. First, you're in conflict because according to MBTI the individual decides what type they are. Other people can provide insight or choose to deny the person's type, but only the individual can determine it. Second, as Femme pointed out, they need some type. Saying they're INFP doesn't work, because they don't use Fi, their Fi might even be worse than their Ti!

One final problem. At what point is an INTP too dumb to be INTP? I want some demarcation.

[Jorge]

Originally Posted by tdmg

Jorge, could you please post in English. I can use Google Translate, but I don't trust its accuracy... sorry

I accidentally edited the existing post, than posting a new one -_-. Stupid firefox tabs confused me. You can check it there now.

[Perseus]

Originally Posted by tdmg

Jorge, could you please post in English. I can use Google Translate, but I don't trust its accuracy... sorry

Here Tlatoani, I'll give a crack at why your statement is wrong

Say you have a person. That person is dumb as a brick, but tests as INTP. Now we have an issue. Either the person tested wrong, or they really are INTP.

If they are INTP, then your statement about knowledge being necessary is wrong. Are you saying that all dumb INTPs test wrong?

I'd contend that saying "all dumb INTPs test wrong" is incorrect. As thewindlistens pointed out, Ti is a process. What goes in your machine doesn't affect the nature of the machine. It's the process of make decisions through Ti that is necessary.

I'm also confused... if they use Ti, but you don't consider them INTP, then what are they? This conflicts with MBTI theory. First, you're in conflict because according to MBTI the individual decides what type they are. Other people can provide insight or choose to deny the person's type, but only the individual can determine it. Second, as Femme pointed out, they need some type. Saying they're INFP doesn't work, because they don't use Fi, their Fi might even be worse than their Ti!

One final problem. At what point is an INTP too dumb to be INTP? I want some demarcation.

I agree. Bricks are very dumb. Anyone from the Terran Federation (Sensors) would understand this.

The test might be wrong! MBTI might be wrong? Depends on your J-P scale.

Blake's 8 (Terry Nation must have been homeless)

[Kevinaswell]

Did this guy seriously just make two gay stabs at me in two different threads?

Is he for real?

Hahahahahahaha.

TLATOANI, YOU'RE THE BEST INTP EVER! <3

Hahahahahaha.

This dude is a riot.

P.s. since we're doing personal stabs, I'd like to point out that I seriously doubt you've ever gotten any tail being so ignorant, and I'd like to let you know I've probably gotten WAYYYYYYYYY MORE PUSSY THAN YOU.

And also friends. Cuz it doesn't seem like you're making any here being so pompous...and I doubt much is different in the real world....unless you like. Grew up ritsy and spoiled and pampered in a gated community where you were like royalty >.<

[SweetDream]

Originally Posted by thewindlistens

Here's a few analogies to what you're trying to push:

"Fire is only fire if it burns wood. This burning plastic isn't on fire because fire only burns wood."
"Scent is only scent if it smells nice. The stinking landfill over there doesn't have a scent because it doesn't smell nice."
"Driving a car is only driving a car if you're driving by the rules. Therefore, if you're speeding, you're not driving a car."
"Water can only be heated with natural gas, if you heated it with electrical power, this (boiling) water is in fact cold."

Note that all of these statements are internally logically consistent but they are all wrong if you subject them to the real world. Much like a faulty closed system an INTP builds in his own mind - the Ti that reached them works perfectly, they are logically correct.

The first one is not logically consistent :
"Fire is only fire if it burns wood. This burning plastic isn't on fire because fire only burns wood."

It would be correct if the principle was "Fire is only fire if it ONLY burns wood" or if the conclusion was "this burning plastic isn't on fire unless the thing that makes it burn can also burn wood".



As for the last one, Ti would either go to the conclusion you gave us, either wonder if the principle is not wrong.


Sorry for being pompous but it's the INTP part of the forum... I'm allowed !

[skycloud86]

I'm an INTP. Yet at school I rarely got above Cs or Bs, and I had to re-do my GCSE Maths exam twice. There's a lot of things I find far too difficult to comprehend. Doesn't mean that the test must be wrong.

The MBTI is not perfect, and there is no way anyone could ever successfully manage to capture an entire person's personality and conciousness in 1 of 16 boxes. It is simply a tool to help you understand yourself more. Look at my results below - do you think I'm always that I, or that N, or that T, or that P? In some situations I could act like an ESFJ, even though I'm certainly no ESFJ.

[thewindlistens]

Originally Posted by SweetDream

The first one is not logically consistent :
"Fire is only fire if it burns wood. This burning plastic isn't on fire because fire only burns wood."

It would be correct if the principle was "Fire is only fire if it ONLY burns wood" or if the conclusion was "this burning plastic isn't on fire unless the thing that makes it burn can also burn wood".



As for the last one, Ti would either go to the conclusion you gave us, either wonder if the principle is not wrong.


Sorry for being pompous but it's the INTP part of the forum... I'm allowed !

You're allowed ! And welcome as well.

(No, you're not pompous at all, where'd you get that idea? I like having my posts challenged.)

Fire is only Fire if it burns wood. Therefore, if Fire burns anything else than wood, it is not real "Fire."

But all of this is just semantics (yeah, you could burn a pot of plastic an put a small block of wood on top and ruin my little analogy). You're missing the point of my analogies. I was trying to make clear that they were all completely logical internally but made no sense when applied to the real world.

I was trying to say that the definition of fire has nothing to do with what fire is capable of burning, just like the definition of Ti has nothing to do with what Ti is capable of being used to think about.

[SweetDream]

Originally Posted by thewindlistens

You're allowed ! And welcome as well.

(No, you're not pompous at all, where'd you get that idea? I like having my posts challenged.)

Fire is only Fire if it burns wood. Therefore, if Fire burns anything else than wood, it is not real "Fire."

But all of this is just semantics (yeah, you could burn a pot of plastic an put a small block of wood on top and ruin my little analogy). You're missing the point of my analogies. I was trying to make clear that they were all completely logical internally but made no sense when applied to the real world.

I was trying to say that the definition of fire has nothing to do with what fire is capable of burning, just like the definition of Ti has nothing to do with what Ti is capable of being used to think about.

No, I didn't miss your point.
Or if I did, I did it on purpose to tease you.
( I like doing that, for example in a very serious discussion about a subject Y, I would stop everybody to say that the sentence they used was not grammatically correct... It's pretty funny ^_^ )
That's where the "pompous" word in my post came from.


Ok, let's get back to your point this time.
I think that your analogies only show that you need some knowledge to apply logic even though the knowledge you have is wrong.
Though they absolutely don't prove that you don't need to be intelligent to make completely logical conclusions ! (especially if we consider that intelligence is applying logic , just like in an IQ test). Well it must also depends on how hard it is to reach the logical conclusions.



Anyway, I agree that INTP is not a synonyme for intelligence.
There are people who are intelligent and can reach perfectly logical conclusions without being INTPs at all.
Actually, to score INTP to the MBTI test you (roughly) just need to answer that you prefer to read books and listen to the music than talking to people ( I ) that you prefer abstract ideas and don't like following a sequential process (N) that you don't have pity for criminals (T) and that you are messy, late and don't like making decisions (P).

Nothing to do with IQ there.




(PS: in case some of you take my words in the very first sense... hmmm just know that I might be an INFP in disguise and that I am driven by my Ne )