# INTJ vs INTP



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

The following are the results of a recent test I took:


*Introverted (I) 100%*Extraverted (E) 0%*Intuitive (N) 82%*Sensing (S) 18%*Thinking (T) 95%*Feeling (F) 5%*Judging (J) 77%*Perceiving (P) 23%

INTJ – Scientists and Strategists​


Another poster told me that the results were impossible because it show that I am a lead Introverted-Thinker. Until now I've never had any reason to question the test results, every version of the test I've taken has come up with the same results, scoring similarly on all 4 axes. I do not doubt that I favor INT, but if the aforementioned poster is correct it is entirely possible I am an INTP instead. I decided it would be best to get a second opinion. If it helps my Enneagram is type 5w6.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

I have very high Ti too. My order is: Ni > Ti > Te > Ne. I have little doubt I'm an INTJ though. I'm more of a holistic thinker, a visionary (as wackjob as that sounds) than a logician and sorry to any INTP who writes this way, I actually just hate reading a pedantic INTP essay. It's Ti on steroids. I can reason very well if I feel like it, but my Ni is always the more natural of the two. In my youth my Te was definitely stronger and if I wanted something I was unstoppable, but in my older years my Ti went through the roof, but I'm sure I'm not dom Ti. Which one, Ni or Ti, is more natural to you?

Pedantic INTP writing:

Now we invoke the law of identity, and since the law of identity is a fundamental axiom, it follows that an apple is an apple. Because these modifiers are mutually exclusive, we also conclude that a bad apple cannot be a good apple.

I'm not sure if I was pedantic enough. In hindsight I probably should have explained that good and bad are opposing qualities, which is why they are mutually exclusive.

Also, try filling this out.


----------



## Doctorjuice (May 1, 2012)

Persephone said:


> Pedantic INTP writing:
> 
> Now we invoke the law of identity, and since the law of identity is a fundamental axiom, it follows that an apple is an apple. Because these modifiers are mutually exclusive, we also conclude that a bad apple cannot be a good apple.


When I read this I was like, "Hmm, weeeellll....."

Then:


> I'm not sure if I was pedantic enough. In hindsight I probably should have explained that good and bad are opposing qualities, which is why they are mutually exclusive.


"Oh! That explains it!"
LOL


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Hyper Ti is hard to fake indeed. I usually just skip stating axioms. If a reader needs reminding of the axioms then I don't care if he understands my paper because he obviously can't reason :tongue: I can be a little malicious to my readers, like this famous author (forgot whom) says that: I only care about people who can understand me. Those who are not equipped to do so, I thrash them about with my writing and watch them burn. I paraphrased.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

0. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.
Nothing whatsoever, I have nothing to complain about.

1. Click on this link: Flickr: Explore! Look at the random photo for about 30 seconds. Copy and paste it here, and write about your impression of it.
The woman has an odd expression on her face which I can't describe, the length of her shadow and the lighting makes me think this picture was taken early in the morning. As for the location it seems like a suburban area on the edge of some woods. The leaves are all very green, it's summer or spring.

2. You are with a group of people in a car, heading to a different town to see your favourite band/artist/musician. Suddenly, the car breaks down for an unknown reason in the middle of nowhere. What are your initial thoughts? What are your outward reactions?
My initial thoughts are to check under the hood and call AAA, my outward reaction would be to tell somebody to do this.

3. You somehow make it to the concert. The driver wants to go to the afterparty that was announced (and assure you they won't drink so they can drive back later). How do you feel about this party? What do you do?
I definitely don't feel like going to the party after the kind of concerts I go to, but I'll probably stick around because I'm sure the driver will be drinking (otherwise why stay?) and I'll need to drive back.

4. On the drive back, your friends are talking. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward reaction? What do you outwardly say?
My inward reaction would be to think that my friend was wrong, my outward reaction (depending on his claim) would be to offer my point of view on the subject.

5. What would you do if you actually saw/experienced something that clashes with your previous beliefs, experiences, and habits?
I'm not sure if this question is asking me what I would do if presented with evidence that my beliefs are wrong, or if it's asking what I would do if I witnessed something that ran averse to my sense of morality and reality, so I will answer both. Were I presented with evidence that some belief of mine was wrong, I would do my best to weigh the evidence against existing evidence in favor of my belief and try to ascertain the truth. If I was to be involved in something that clashed with my moral sensibilities I might or might not act depending on the circumstance. Were I to witness a murder, I would call the police, unless of course I would then put myself in danger by doing so.

6. What are some of your most important values? How did you come about determining them? How can they change?
Patience, awareness, calm, concentration and ambition, these are values which allow one to succeed in society. These values will only ever change if society changes.

7. a) What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else? b) If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?
My ability to work under pressure while not panicking or experiencing adverse physiological reactions e.g. shaky hands. Alternatively, when involved in highly emotional social situations I tend to either leave as quickly as possible or, if I am unable to, I will stay as quiet as possible while the subject(s) in question deal with their issues.

8. How do you treat hunches or gut feelings? In what situations are they most often triggered?
I tend to go with gut feelings, because the logic that supports them tends to come with them. Most commonly they will come up while I am in a discussion of some sort, I was recently having a discussion with a few fellow students on Thucydides's Milean dialogue, and many of the observations I made came to me on the spot.

9. a) What activities energize you most? b) What activities drain you most? Why?
I definitely become energized while doing physically inactive things like reading or playing some sort of game. I usually get drained very quickly if I have to deal with people I'm not familiar with, not quite as much if it's someone I know.

10. What do you repress about your outward behavior or internal thought process when around others? Why?
I've often observed that my behavior with people I don't know is rather strange, I know a lot of introverts tend not to present much of themselves when dealing with strangers, but with me it's almost and involuntary thing. I can feel my face go slack, and my voice go flat. I'm much more lively when dealing with friends, somewhere in the middle with acquaintances. I never consciously repress my internal thought process, I doubt if I could, it's kind of a problem when dealing with people, sometimes they need to repeat themselves a few time before I process what they're saying.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Persephone said:


> Hyper Ti is hard to fake indeed. I usually just skip stating axioms. If a reader needs reminding of the axioms then I don't care if he understands my paper because he obviously can't reason :tongue: I can be a little malicious to my readers, like this famous author (forgot whom) says that: I only care about people who can understand me. Those who are not equipped to do so, I thrash them about with my writing and watch them burn. I paraphrased.


How do you make a concious use of Ti? Apparently from what I read a few days ago the perfectionism in thought can make an NiTe user look more like a TiNe because they seem to work similarly. With the NiTe axis, the drive for accuracy forces the bearer to be pedantic. Te's deluge of data will force the vision to become as perfect as it can be creating that order and thorough understanding which is reminiscent in appearance of the TINe axis. And that can make INTJs have that drive for word precision INTPs supposedly naturally have since the slaving of Te is suppose to be reflected in the final vision. 

Is Ti just acquiring a deluge of ideas (Se/Ne) and then making sense of this irrespective of external evidence (Te)?


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

I really believe that Ni is more natural to me, thoughts and feelings just kind of come to me and I tend to puzzle out the logic shortly afterwards.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> How do you make a concious use of Ti? Apparently from what I read a few days ago the perfectionism in thought can make an NiTe user look more like a TiNe because they seem to work similarly. With the NiTe axis, the drive for accuracy forces the bearer to be pedantic. Te's deluge of data will force the vision to become as perfect as it can be creating that order and thorough understanding which is reminiscent in appearance of the TINe axis. And that can make INTJs have that drive for word precision INTPs supposedly naturally have since the slaving of Te is suppose to be reflected in the final vision.
> 
> Is Ti just acquiring a deluge of ideas (Se/Ne) and then making sense of this irrespective of external evidence (Te)?


I have no clue. I was just imitating the pedantic INTP style in order to articulate my ideas (ok, my imitation is totally nonsensical. I literally didn't know what to write). In math I can be as pedantic in thought, as the style I was trying to imitate. The difference is, of course, I do not expect the reader to need me to spell everything out for them.



> *Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point.**Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bolded everything I do when I introvert my thinking. What is different with me, though, is that I use the Ti process to break down ideas into their essential elements, then use my new insights and the vast reservoir of knowledge to build it up again into a theory (Ni), which is what I had intended all along. I am very good at spotting logical inconsistencies and am prone to pulling data from all different areas to find diverse examples of a given theory at work, as well as framing things in radically new perspectives to check the consistency of theories and ideas. I use Ti to support Ni, the insights I gather, support Te. I am such a person that I usually have to develop a theory about a project before I feel confident enough to undertake it. Te, however, is rarely required. Many times I'm happy just to have it figured out. It might come in useful in the future and even if it doesn't, it was a fun thinking exercise. In many ways this behavior is very fiveish. I store large amounts of "theories" so I can be successful come what may.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Persephone said:


> Pedantic INTP writing:
> 
> Now we invoke the law of identity, and since the law of identity is a fundamental axiom, it follows that an apple is an apple. Because these modifiers are mutually exclusive, we also conclude that a bad apple cannot be a good apple.



We are really that bad, are we not?


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Fate said:


> We are really that bad, are we not?


I honestly haven't seen anything like this on the forum- maybe it's because INTPs here aren't writing academic essays, but I've read INTP essays IRL. Male INTPs tend to write like this. Females are less precise and pedantic in their writing. Females tend to be emotionally open while males are very closed. Female INTPs have no qualms, after we get to know each other, telling me anything and everything that's important to them and we'd have eight or nine hours of nonstop female bonding. It's jarring, actually. You'd think they're the same type.

@_Sollertis_ Is it just me or does your survey show _very_ strong Te? You display Ni by your trusting of your hunches, but your Te is literally dripping off the page.

Especially this:



> My initial thoughts are to check under the hood and call AAA, my outward reaction would be to tell somebody to do this.


That's pure Te. "Identify problem. Create action steps. Do it." In my own survey (and I am admittedly Ni-heavy. My Te is rather weak in comparison) I contingency-planned the hell out of the situation. Not a lot of indication of Fe, some Fi, but very low F on the whole. If your introversion weren't 100% I would have thought ENTJ. Barring that, I think you're INTJ. My weak J is probably what contributes to my weak Te- your strong J might be an explanation of why you seem to be a great trouble-shooter.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Persephone said:


> I have very high Ti too. My order is: Ni > Ti > Te > Ne. I have little doubt I'm an INTJ though. I'm more of a holistic thinker, a visionary (as wackjob as that sounds) than a logician and sorry to any INTP who writes this way, I actually just hate reading a pedantic INTP essay. It's Ti on steroids. I can reason very well if I feel like it, but my Ni is always the more natural of the two. In my youth my Te was definitely stronger and if I wanted something I was unstoppable, but in my older years my Ti went through the roof, but I'm sure I'm not dom Ti. Which one, Ni or Ti, is more natural to you?
> 
> Pedantic INTP writing:
> 
> ...


In hindsight I think you're a little bad writing as a pendantic Ti user, because I see much more Ni in that extract than Ti  NeTi is so much more... fluous and flows differently. Ni is shining through here.

I can quote some of my academic writing to get a sense of how I write with Ti on steroids:


> This thesis will focus on studying how globalization affects the formation of communities thanks to the development of new ways of spreading media by focusing on how new media and technology affects human imagination. I will use metal music and more specifically Viking/folk/pagan/national-socialist (black) metal as a form of case study and how bands and fans alike use certain imaginary to perpetuate a sense of belonging across the globe, and how the imagined become incorporated into new local contexts as something given and “natural”. This process often referred to as glocalization plays a vital role in this thesis and how it shows that human culture is not something static and unchanging, but that it is an active process of both the distribution and incorporation of different cultural expressions between different local contexts as aform of neighborhood maintenance.


Notice the Ne and how Ti has to consider EVERY Ne possibility when building the Ti framework. Also notice how my writing flows differently to yours. Ni vs Ne.

I've noticed a big difference between Ne and Ni users in that Ni users tend to not want to use conjunctions. I could essentially write a run-on sentence without any fullstops at all. This is probably why Ne creates a strong sense of where's the point, the finish, while Ni is the opposite. Other things to consider is that Ne never seems to want to assume. There's always a sense of underlying uncertainty.

If I were to write what you wrote, I would write it like this:
Now consider the law of identity. Because the law of identity is a fundamentally different axiom between two classifications, an apple must therefore be an apple and not a pear. Since these these modifiers are usually exclusive, it must naturally follow that a good apple cannot be the same as a bad apple.

I am also beginning to suspect that perhaps you confuse Ti writing with Ni writing?  It's easy to point out INTP academic writing because of Ne.

As an example, here's an INTP writing prose:
http://clarityofnight.blogspot.se/2011/11/intp-experience-chapter-1-why-do-i-feel.html


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> How do you make a concious use of Ti? Apparently from what I read a few days ago the perfectionism in thought can make an NiTe user look more like a TiNe because they seem to work similarly. With the NiTe axis, the drive for accuracy forces the bearer to be pedantic. Te's deluge of data will force the vision to become as perfect as it can be creating that order and thorough understanding which is reminiscent in appearance of the TINe axis. And that can make INTJs have that drive for word precision INTPs supposedly naturally have since the slaving of Te is suppose to be reflected in the final vision.
> 
> Is Ti just acquiring a deluge of ideas (Se/Ne) and then making sense of this irrespective of external evidence (Te)?


INTPs don't like to indulge in word precision in the same sense INTJs do. The approach to language is completely different. To me it's just to clear up ambiguity. To the INTJ it's to put as many meanings into the sense use that covers everything. Ti vs Ni.

I wish I could write more like an INTJ. They use a very reductionist approach I can't utilize because of Ne.


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

Persephone said:


> I honestly haven't seen anything like this on the forum- maybe it's because INTPs here aren't writing academic essays, but I've read INTP essays IRL. Male INTPs tend to write like this. Females are less precise and pedantic in their writing. Females tend to be emotionally open while males are very closed. Female INTPs have no qualms, after we get to know each other, telling me anything and everything that's important to them and we'd have eight or nine hours of nonstop female bonding. It's jarring, actually. You'd think they're the same type.
> 
> @_Sollertis_ Is it just me or does your survey show _very_ strong Te? You display Ni by your trusting of your hunches, but your Te is literally dripping off the page.
> 
> ...



Is it possible for me to email you one of my brief academic essays for perusal? Of course, so you can tell me what type you think I actually am.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sollertis said:


> 0. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.
> Nothing whatsoever, I have nothing to complain about.
> 
> 1. Click on this link: Flickr: Explore! Look at the random photo for about 30 seconds. Copy and paste it here, and write about your impression of it.
> ...


You sir, are an INTJ. Want to see how I wrote my questionnaire in comparison?

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/109365-im-bored-so-sue-me.html


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> You sir, are an INTJ. Want to see how I wrote my questionnaire in comparison?
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/109365-im-bored-so-sue-me.html



You were far more pedantic than I was in my reply. My own explanation is how tired I currently am and how overheated my brain feels.


0. Tired. Male, mid-twenties. A bit stressed.

1. Smooth… very nice to look at, but would not classify as “beautiful.” A bit surreal, but not abstract enough to make me think “brilliant.” Overall, a nice picture, but nothing special.










2. Determine our exact location, and whether we are in any sort of danger or not. Attempt to deduce the problem at hand and whether there is a possible and/or efficient way to fix it. Afterwards, try to determine the most immediate source of help we can find. It would largely depend on whether a cellphone signal was present or not. If there is no cell phone reception, the best course of action would probably be to wait for incoming traffic. If NOBODY shows up, we should probably start hiking for help. I will stay calm!!! What good will panicking do?

3. If I am not tired, then I might go. Also depends on whether I’m drunk/on drugs/with a nice girl/other factors. The question necessitates too many unknown variables for me to give you a conclusive answer…

4. I will most likely win the argument. I’m very good at this sort of thing, although not as much when I have no resources at hand. If I had cellphone reception, once again, I will win the argument with absolute certainty.

5. Not really sure what you mean “saw/experienced” something. If someone preaches their religion to me, I’ll probably just listen for the sake of understanding his/her perspective and the reasoning behind it. I really don’t care what other people believe, so long as I’m not being harmed by it (immediately).

6. Self-preservation and selfishness first. In less callous terms, my own happiness before another’s. I don’t have an ethical standard by which I live my life and make decisions by. I dislike dangerous criminals/people who are a constant threat to myself and others. I value loyalty, because it is very difficult for me to develop a long-term relationship (friendship or otherwise). I look at people who trust and care quickly to be naïve and borderline stupid

7. I am… apathetic, and I disappear from my friends for long periods without notice. I suppose I would like to be more driven/ambitious/ruthless.

8. I will analyze my hunches/gut feelings and the associated variables of why they might be correct or incorrect. I will act accordingly.

9. Computer games, analyzing and editing information to perfection(such as a database) and never achieving the level of perfection my mind creates, reading novels (mostly fantasy and a bit of sci-fi), watching an analyzing documentaries (particularly science, anthropology, and history), martial arts/kickboxing (it’s my hobby, and tactically fulfilling), and football/soccer (I don’t play, but it’s very tactically deep as well). Going out and being around other people drains me. Going to school drains me. Busywork drains me. Small talk drains me. Being in line drains me. Being in long car rides drains me.

10. I don’t tell most people that I wish they would get run over by a semi-truck. I also don’t tell most people how stupid I think they are, or how I hope they would never have children. I also put on a fake smile, and I can be very charming or innocuous if necessary.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fate said:


> You were far more pedantic than I was in my reply. My own explanation is how tired I currently am and how overheated my brain feels.
> 
> 
> 0. Tired. Male, mid-twenties. A bit stressed.
> ...


Think it purely boils down to Ne development. My Ne is very strong.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Fate said:


> Is it possible for me to email you one of my brief academic essays for perusal? Of course, so you can tell me what type you think I actually am.


Sure. I can also send you an INTP essay if you want. Are you still figuring things out?


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Think it purely boils down to Ne development. My Ne is very strong.



Your writing does leak of Ne, much more than mine. I'm also very exhausted and wrote that piece in a pinch; you should see my academic writings.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fate said:


> Your writing does leak of Ne, much more than mine. I'm also very exhausted and wrote that piece in a pinch; you should see my academic writings.


Sure. Here's mine


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

LeaT said:


> You sir, are an INTJ. Want to see how I wrote my questionnaire in comparison?


I can't say I'm terribly surprised, I also love that you're a fan of Insomnium. When I was imagining my concert I saw something very similar to Insomnium.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Persephone said:


> > *Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point.Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it.
> >
> >
> >
> ...


Yeah I see but I don't see that as authentic Ti, that is just a description of behaviour claimed to be exclusive to to that function. Which I think is more of a mistake since people can display behaviours which don't seem to be in line with their functions; I'm more inclined to accept the 4 function model because from what I've seen, authentic use of the shadow functions is not something I've found. A simple example is how I've noticed that INTP don't actually appreciate extroverted thinking since they can't be swayed by external facts. Listing a deluge of facts will not sway an INTP since their psyche undermines them due to how they lack Ni to build that internal logical order from them. What you claiming to be Ti there is more like Ni's ability to actively control the subject at hand deliberately, making sense of the data, facts, thrown at it. 
_
(that's were in my model of understanding all introverted functions sacrifice "objectivity" infavour of control and order (working with their extroverted counterparts of course); whilst extroverted functions are objective thus greatly valid by the psyche since they have the final say when the person possess them)
_
I don't see us as having authentic Ti because our psyche doesn't actually value internal logical order. For an idea to be considered valid (this is after Ni creates a model at hand), we have to seek eternal evidence to support it else that logic is regarded as being redundant. Whereas INTPs value that internal logic, but on the contrary they don't value intuitions (Ne ideas) unless they are sort after from the external world. At the same time we don't value Ne, just having a list of intuitions thrown at us, since we actually don't posses Ti to make sense of that. Hence we discriminate paths that offer little room for creating an understanding which I see more of as Ni selecting and deducting ideas, but again that internal order isn't valid unless external evidence can be sort.

I hope you see why I don't really respect the concious "use" of the shadow functions, my argument is kind of short here. However ever since noticing that Fe mimics Te and Te mimics Fe article I gave you, I'm more inclined to explore the 4 function model more so. Shadow functions seem like they are deep in the subconscious hence MBTI says you don't have them whilst socionomics explains why your psyche rejects their nature (I think its an issue of word interpretation at the end).


----------



## Empty (Sep 28, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Sure. Here's mine



You've made me a bit less concerned regarding the difficulty of a Master's Thesis if that is what it should be.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm ever so happy that discerning my type wasn't difficult, otherwise you blokes wouldn't be having this stimulating exchange.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

LeaT said:


> In hindsight I think you're a little bad writing as a pendantic Ti user, because I see much more Ni in that extract than Ti  NeTi is so much more... fluous and flows differently. Ni is shining through here.


I use Ti to do my thinking. I rarely write it down. In fact if you asked me to write down my entire thought process I would probably scream. I hid some of my writing down there. 

The first one is a history project where we have to write as a member of Byzantine society. I chose to write as Patriarch Athanasios I appealing to aristocrats and the Emperor to feed the poor instead of taxing them to finance the war. Granted, I'm writing as another personality but some of my rhetorics still come through. I tried to hide it but you are who you are. It's ten pages long so I omitted many parts including parts I sound so sappy I don't want to read it myself.


* *




Your Divine Majesty the Emperor, your Graces the caesars and sebastokrators, and _all_ your Excellencies the bishops, behold our glorious city! Her boulevards ring with the wails of mothers piteously rocking their frigid babes and her pavements are strewn with skeletal corpses. Her granaries are resonating with the echoes of want and foreign brigands, rich from her poverty, haunt the countryside. All of this, while the rich man clad in purple silk parades imperiously past Lazarus, having only eyes for his fattening purse, unfazed by the suffering of fellow Christians from his crimes. I come before you, my Lords, not to chastise you, burden you with talk of new calamities in the city or prostrate myself so that you might placate me with trinkets. In my hubris, I had arrogantly believed that you, great stewards of the state, should endure my impudent rants and moralizing when you have more pressing matters to attend to. Nay, I come here today to speak only the truth, to present to you matters you must not have seen, walking through the streets on your fine horses, due to your high station. I come to you as a messenger and an illuminator, if I may give myself so much credit, that vision of the truth may succeed where my insolent badgering had failed.

[...]

The rich man finds no peace in his irresistible need to augment his wealth and preserve what he have against the hopeful gaze of Lazarus, weaving tall tales of the latter’s disfavor with God to delude himself that his avarice might be just. The rich man sits on his throne of gold, anxiously refusing to acknowledge its existence, opting that the riches should never see the light of day than giving alms so that others might share the plenty that God had given to all men. With his soul weighed down by sin of theft and contempt against his neighbors, the rich man has forgotten Christ, who once said to him: “go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me” (Mark 10:21). For Lord Jesus said, “take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” (Matt 6:25-26) If we have not forgotten Christ’s promise, then we disbelieve it, for otherwise we would not be wicked as we are. We would not jealously guard our earthly treasures had we faith in treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal (Matt 6:20-21). Like the rich man, we are so bedazzled by the glittering gold before us that we forget to behold the heavens above or look with compassion upon Lazarus languishing at our feet.


Rather than look to God for our salvation, we gird our swords and put on our armor against Atmans in the East and the Catalans in the West, seizing wheat from paupers to finance our wars until they have nothing left to give and divesting them of the bare necessities to live. To win the wars that were the results of our decadence, we disobey Christ once more. We forbade our brothers from harvesting the fruits of their labor and permitted Latins and the unscrupulous among us reap devilish profits from their hunger, thus we shall harm Greeks more than we ever will do our enemies. Everyday, more Greeks desert to the Latins or submit gladly to the Ishmaelites because we Christians, struck blind by our avarice, have no humanity left in us. We despise our refugees and barbarically beat them when they beg for a mouthful of bread; we take away their livelihoods and live like kings; we appeal to God to conscript them today and spurn Him tomorrow, all the while angering Him more. And to what end? As always, we only see the symptom before us and perhaps it is no surprise we would rather sacrifice our brothers in Christ on the altar of infidels in a pyrrhic victory than remove the cancer that courted His fury. My Lords, our Empire is grievously ill, and even if we should retain the territories we shed blood for, we reign over ghost towns and empty fields: Our Christians would have perished or gone over to the devil. For whom are we preserving our holy Empire if not Christians? How does it stand to reason that a shepherd, in claiming to protect his flock, should _destroy_ them and lead them to ruin?


Why lament now? Why this drivel, you ask me? We may bawl, rip our hair out or better, wrap our cloaks around poor Lazarus, but he is dead and who can help that? Perhaps I mean to torment your Graces out of malice? To compound your troubles and disrupt your (without a doubt) more stately obligations? To fill the ears of all you great men with platitudes because that is all we little men can do to vindicate burying ourselves in Scripture while the world goes to hell? That I have certainly done, like the tax collectors who betray their neighbors by robbing them, yet I am also better placed by circumstance to see the errors of our ways because I occupy a lowly position. I am thus more convinced than ever of our Lord’s mercy, for He gave us the power of such empathy that all the angels in heaven would fall before we could witness the suffering of our neighbors and be not moved to compassion, and compassion is the essence of He who perished on the cross to redeem mankind, such grace that compelled Him to not only love paupers but depraved sinners. Jesus saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matt 9:9-13).


When the rich man died his natural death, his magnificent mausoleum (so much for that) became the gates through which he descended into hell where he was damned. In the devil’s ever-burning furnace, he beseeched Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them (Luke 16:28-29). The Lord, in his infinite mercy, has given to us many saints and above all, his only son so that we might enter his embrace in heaven and if that is not enough, certainly heaven is bereft of angels. As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and life: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways. (Ezekiel 33:11) Must Lazarus lie dead on our doorsteps before we heed our prophets’ words? My Lords, salvation is within reach and righteousness yet lives in our hearts, for in the order of things there will always be paupers whom the Lord entrusted in _our_ care by handing to us the keys to the wealth of the Earth. The Holy Apostle Paul writes, “we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out (1 Timothy 6:7).” Therefore think nothing of your Earthly riches for you shall surely be deprived of them in death, but rather regard with equity the paupers you once saw as jealous and wicked inferiors as your brothers in Christ, or you will find no man with whom to share your great burden. So said our Lord Jesus: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt 22:38-39).


Christ himself was a friend of paupers; let us do after his example and renounce our sins so that the Lord may end this vile war and be appeased. May brotherly love prevail, may compassion be our banner and may faith in the Kingdom of God be enthroned above all else in our hearts. Let us extend our friendship to all Christians, restore our Holy Empire and perpetuate His glory forever and ever. Amen.




I know. An agnostic writing a sermon. Shoot me.

An academic essay analyzing the character of Odysseus through the two completely different lands he travels to, and how that juxtaposition reveals his traits.


* *





Between Gods and Beasts: Odysseus as a Survivor

In his _Odyssey_ [1]detailing the homecoming of the titular Greek hero, Homer juxtaposes the seemingly mutually exclusive characteristics of god and beast. In Odysseus’ travels, the level of detail devoted to the Cyclops and Phaeacians begs the readers’ attention. The Cyclops are presented as godless, brutish and violent, surviving on the most primitive means reminiscent of that of cavemen and having an affinity with animals rather than men. In contrast, the Phaeacians represent the highest of human civilization, having much in common with gods and are the antitheses of animalistic behavior: artistic, gracious and pious. Humanity, on the other hand, possesses both extremes, striving for civilization but unable to be rid of its primal passions. In the _Odyssey, _Homer associates each of the two lands with godliness and savagery both present in men, but Odysseus transcends these impulses and shows an unusual mastery of them, showing himself to be the supreme survivor.

The opposing characteristics of the Cyclops and Phaeacians seem so contradictory that it is slightly beyond imagination that humans can reconcile the two, a feat Odysseus achieves with ease. Both being extremely isolated and apart from humanity, the two groups are free to develop extremes of their sophistication or brutishness, untempered by the fickle affairs of men. The Cyclops, Homer shows, are a little more civilized than wild beasts. On their island, “no flocks browse, no plowlands roll with wheat… empty of human kind,” portraying a wild, uninhabited land with no hint of the most basic criteria for civilization: agriculture (9.135-6). There is no sign of trade or any human civilization, as Odysseus, in his soliloquy, tells the readers that the island could easily have been “a decent place to live in”: prosperous, cultivated and able to bear “any crop you like in season” (9.143; 9.144). Upon first seeing the giant’s lair, Odysseus concludes that he was “ a loner, dead set in his own lawless ways,” who “never mixed with others”, suggesting that alienation from human contact causes anarchy and lack of social conscience (9.209; 9.210). The inside of the lair implies much the same, filled with “large flat racks loaded with drying cheeses,/ the folds crowded with young lambs…”; primitive and certainly filled with animal stench and excretions (9.244-6). Furthermore, the giant lives with such filth day to day, a condition that few civilized men would tolerate. Also, the enormous stone slab shielding the giant’s lair suggests he has brute strength that no man can match (9.275). Despite these worrying signs, Odysseus tries to pacify the giant, invoking Zeus to his defense in order to elicit some hospitality from someone he knows to be lawless. It soon becomes clear that the giant is as godless as he is bloodthirsty, proudly declaring that “we Cyclops never blink at Zeus and Zeus’s shield” and then proceeds to beat to death two of Odysseus’ men like they were game, “their brains gushed out all over” (9.309; 9.327). After he is blinded, Polyphemus further reveals his antisocial nature when he shows more compassion towards his ram than he does Odysseus (9.497). Although the Cyclops are evidently intelligent mortals resembling men, they represent the most primal of human vices: violent, decadent and impious.

In contrast to the Cyclops, the Phaeacians are as removed from their animalistic roots as humans can possibly be, epitomizing another aspect of humanity. Like the Cyclops, they are similarly isolated from the rest of humanity. Lavished with riches and adoration from gods, Scheria is akin to an earthly paradise. King Alcinous’ palace is adorned with gold, silver and bronze, and his people enjoy a “feast that flowed on forever” (7.104-5; 7.103; 7.115). Phaeacians live in a world of luxury, artistry and generosity, starkly contrasting with the Cyclops and borders on unnatural. Homer never fails to describe them as semi-divine, starting with their “godlike king, Nausithous” (7.8), and the comparisons of Phaeacians with gods extend to Alcinous, Arete, Laodamas, Nausicaa and the royal couple’s associates. Unlike Polythemus who tries to kill his guests, they are astoundingly pious, proclaiming that “suppliants’ rights are sacred” by Zeus’ decree (7.215). Fittingly, “[they] are hardly world-class boxers or wrestlers”, in that they never have to face a day of hardship. On the other hand, they are “champion sailors” and experts of the lyre and dance, all of the so-called “civilized” arts, representing the apex of human civilization (8.280-2). As a consequence, unlike Polythemus who immediate suspects Odysseus and his men of being pirates, the Phaeacians have become excessively complacent and self satisfied (9.286). According to Nausicaa, no one can “reach Phaeacian soil and lay it waste”, and this reality will never change, for the “immortals love [them] too much for that” (9.220-1; 9.222). Like his daughter, Alcinous laments in bewilderment why the gods never visit his house anymore, indicating a sense of entitlement to divine adoration. Their rude awakening comes when Poseidon decides to sink the ship carrying Odysseus home, shattering their false sense of security and rendering them “aghast” (13.188). Phaeacians, unlike the Cyclops, represent a complete removal from nature, rendering them extremely sophisticated, pious and beautiful, but overconfident of their safety.

Cyclops and Phaeacians are both children of Poseidon, indicating that god and beast are two side of the same coin. Humanity exhibits the qualities of both, but is between the two extremes. The migration of Phaeacians can be read as an allegory to human development. Once, they resided next to the violent Cyclops in Hyperia (6.4-6). Finding the vicious Cyclops dangerous and difficult to live with, King Nausithous “led the people off in a vast migration” to Scheria: civilization is created by lifting it from nature (6.8-9). As much as man shies away from brute force and lawlessness of animals, he does not shake it off completely, and each one is a mix of god and beast, but never quite either. The defining characteristic of Odysseus is not that he is either god or beast; like any other man, he is in between the two archetypes. However, his flexible and pragmatic personality sets him apart. Odysseus is a chameleon, switching effortlessly between Cyclops and Phaeacians. Although he has several during the course of his journey, his most dramatic transformation occurs when he wakes up on Scheria, looking like “a mountain lion exultant in his power” (6.143). After Odysseus bathes, however, Nausicaa remarks that “[Odysseus] seems like a god who rules the skies”, to suggest his immense malleability (6.269). Also palpable is his seamless shift between diplomacy, belligerence and generosity. When it is apparent that Polyphemus would never let Odysseus and his men leave unscathed, the latter decides to meet animalistic violence with calculated intelligence. He considers killing Polythemus, but realizes that “[he’d] finish off [themselves] as well” because mortal men cannot hope to move the stone slab that blocks the giant’s door (9.340). In a stroke of brilliance, he decides to blind the Cyclop instead, riding out of the cave on the latter’s livestock (9.428-515). When the situation calls for diplomacy and flattery, he assumes the role perfectly, charming Nausicaa with his winning words, that “[he] looks at [her] and a sense of wonder takes [him]” (6.177). His mastery over his urges is what sets him apart from other Greek heroes such as Ajax, who has “flung a brazen boast” that he has escaped from the gods, when in fact Poseidon has saved him, causing Poseidon to kill him (4.564). In his own house, Odysseus quietly takes the insults and abuses the suitors hurl at him to mock his ability to wield his own weapon (21.404-9), showing the legendary restraint necessary for his slaughter of the suitors to come into fruition. Despite his ruthless slaughter of the suitors, Odysseus breaks “into a smile” when asked to spare Medon and Phemius, demonstrating remarkable clear-headedness despite his cathartic release just moments before (22.392). Odysseus is frequently described as the beggar-king; he is both. He knows when to be the filthy beggar and when to be the lordly king. He understands when it is appropriate to exact inhuman cruelty, and when to be merciful. Above all, he strategically employs both the crudeness of the Cyclops and the meticulousness of the Phaeacians. Odysseus is the ultimate survivor who displays a skill that helps him maneuver the various dangers he faces on his journey: self mastery.

Homer describes the Cyclops and the Phaeacians in great detail because they reflect the duality of human nature: part god, part beast. Reading their episodes with Odysseus’ personality in mind reveals the latter to be a pragmatic, biphasic character whose adaptability allows him to survive the complicity of Circe and the lethally alluring voice of Sirens. He is a hero with ownership of his emotions, coldly analyzing the situation he faces and making the most rational decision. Odysseus is a round character who possesses the cerebral flexibility that many modern psychologists found interviewing the most astounding survivors of our age, confirming the wisdom of a blind poet who lived almost three thousand years ago.

[HR][/HR][1] All citations from the Odyssey are from the Fagles translation (The Odyssey. New York: Penguin Group, 1996)





High school essay. Be kind. I could edit that essay but I'm not going to. Perfectionism be damned.


----------



## Persephone (Nov 14, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> Yeah I see but I don't see that as authentic Ti, that is just a description of behaviour claimed to be exclusive to to that function. Which I think is more of a mistake since people can display behaviours which don't seem to be in line with their functions; I'm more inclined to accept the 4 function model because from what I've seen, authentic use of the shadow functions is not something I've found. A simple example is how I've noticed that INTP don't actually appreciate extroverted thinking since they can't be swayed by external facts. Listing a deluge of facts will not sway an INTP since their psyche undermines them due to how they lack Ni to build that internal logical order from them. What you claiming to be Ti there is more like Ni's ability to actively control the subject at hand deliberately, making sense of the data, facts, thrown at it.
> _
> (that's were in my model of understanding all introverted functions sacrifice "objectivity" infavour of control and order (working with their extroverted counterparts of course); whilst extroverted functions are objective thus greatly valid by the psyche since they have the final say when the person possess them)
> _
> ...


I suppose then I'm just good at logical reasoning. I don't see my exhibiting "shadows" as impossible. I have very weak preference for J at best- my ADHD actually makes my mind and behavior naturally more P than most J types, but my mind wants to be J. I think if I didn't have ADHD I would have a very strong J preference but since MBTI tests often ask for your _behavior_ instead of your preference, I always come out on the borderline, even score INTP many times.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fate said:


> You've made me a bit less concerned regarding the difficulty of a Master's Thesis if that is what it should be.


Think that highly depends on the subject you're writing about.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Persephone said:


> I use Ti to do my thinking. I rarely write it down. In fact if you asked me to write down my entire thought process I would probably scream. I hid some of my writing down there.
> 
> The first one is a history project where we have to write as a member of Byzantine society. I chose to write as Patriarch Athanasios I appealing to aristocrats and the Emperor to feed the poor instead of taxing them to finance the war. Granted, I'm writing as another personality but some of my rhetorics still come through. I tried to hide it but you are who you are. It's ten pages long so I omitted many parts including parts I sound so sappy I don't want to read it myself.
> 
> ...


Thank you. That is very interesting and I will have a look at it. I am not saying you're not using Ti or are incapable of doing so; but Ti is definitely a slave to Ni. The Ni is very strong in you  You might want to have a look at this also? 

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/110281-intp-intj-writing-styles.html#post2794796

When I write academically I actually find it easier to adopt an INTJ framework of writing. I need the Te structure very badly. I found it much easier to write the INTJ section than the INTP one. I think this might be because academic writing and academia in general is very influenced by the INTJ structure in general though. Less is more and all that.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Persephone said:


> I suppose then I'm just good at logical reasoning. I don't see my exhibiting "shadows" as impossible. I have very weak preference for J at best- my ADHD actually makes my mind and behavior naturally more P than most J types, but my mind wants to be J. I think if I didn't have ADHD I would have a very strong J preference but since MBTI tests often ask for your _behavior_ instead of your preference, I always come out on the borderline, even score INTP many times.


Logical reasoning is easy anybody can do it, *just because something sounds right will not mean it actually is right*, that is were the problem is. It seems as if the natural INTJ mind is prone to seeking evidence else the premises is regarded as illogical ("unproven", now that is being kind to those who disagree). xNTJs regard internal logic as useless since we consider ourselves experts at it as socionics states. 



> *Socionics : Introverted Logic (Ti, )*
> 
> 
> LIEs are often not particularly interested in thinking about the internal consistency of logical systems. usually base their viewpoints and suppositions on factual information, evidence, and ideas external to systems of logical inference. As pragmatic and outwardly-driven individuals, LIEs often ignore logical and mathematical relationships between concepts, perceiving them as uninteresting, unproductive, and of minimal importance in effectuating one's own productive goals in the real world.
> ...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Logical reasoning is easy anybody can do it, *just because something sounds right will not mean it actually is right*, that is were the problem is. It seems as if the natural INTJ mind is prone to seeking evidence else the premises is regarded as illogical ("unproven", now that is being kind to those who disagree). xNTJs regard internal logic as useless since we consider ourselves experts at it as socionics states.


But the quote you provided contradicted it... They're indeed decribing Ti, you know, the INTP's dominant function. In Socionics INTj is correlated to the MBTI's INTP. 

I mean, at least get your facts straight.


----------

