# Hello thinkers, what's your iq?



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

MsBossyPants said:


> Before everyone tires themselves out patting themselves on the back for pulling a high score on an IQ test, remember that IQ tests measure one's ability to problem solve by reasoning and thinking abstractly at a high level. The questions, by necessity, are set by people who themselves have the ability to reason and problem solve by thinking abstractly at a high level. The people who score well have that same ability.
> 
> So it becomes: A bunch of NTs developed a test to see how well NTs can score on a test developed to measure how well NTs think. Surprise, :dry:we do well.


Richard Feynman is typed as ESFP by the MBTI connoisseurs and he had a perfect score on the logical/mathematical part of the IQ test; although, the verbal part bogged his score down to 120ish because he had some verbal disabilities as a kid; he didn't start speaking properly until he was 7 iirc.

I think the ability to think abstractly isn't in any way related to MBTI. I've seen STs and SFs who were far better at abstracting situations and seeing where they go than many NTs I've known. NTs aren't particularly intelligent. They're just more intellectually driven. We talk more about science stuff giving the impression that we're intelligent -- an assumption not necessarily true. Oh and yes, I dismiss the pole results entirely lol. Either I dismiss the poll results, or I dismiss IQ's potency at determining any sort of intellectual aptitude because given the results, I'd expect far more intelligence in this forum than what I've actually seen. 

On another note, I'm not surprised at all to see NTPs list high scores for themselves. It corroborates my experience of NTPs boasting high IQ scores. But, tell you what, NTPs comprise the majority of the most retarded people I've ever come across. It seems as if they have that luxury car all designed to impress, but all it ever does is pose for the photo shoots. The owner himself is incapable of driving it. I'd take a reasonable dumb person over a deluded genius any day (the latter is actually destructive, while the former is productive).


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> On another note, I'm not surprised at all to see NTPs list high scores for themselves. It corroborates my experience of NTPs boasting high IQ scores. But, tell you what, NTPs comprise the majority of the most retarded people I've ever come across. It seems as if they have that luxury car all designed to impress, but all it ever does is pose for the photo shoots. The owner himself is incapable of driving it. I'd take a reasonable dumb person over a deluded genius any day (the latter is actually destructive, while the former is productive).


Damn.
I’ve never taken an official IQ test so I won’t comment on that. But perhaps NTPs consider themselves geniuses simply because by comparison the majority of people seem so incredibly _slow._

In solitude, I would never think of myself as a genius. I think most of us INTPs, at least, tend to focus on our weaknesses rather than our strengths. However, when it takes other people so long to grasp something that seems painfully obvious, especially when these people seem quite witty in other situations, naturally we're going to reconsider.

Or maybe you just missed the sarcasm.
Or maybe I’m just speaking for myself.
Who knows?


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Tamehagane said:


> Damn.
> I’ve never taken an official IQ test so I won’t comment on that. But perhaps NTPs consider themselves geniuses simply because by comparison the majority of people seem so incredibly _slow._
> 
> In solitude, I would never think of myself as a genius. I think most of us INTPs, at least, tend to focus on our weaknesses rather than our strengths. However, when it takes other people so long to grasp something that seems painfully obvious, especially when these people seem quite witty in other situations, naturally we're going to reconsider.
> ...


I'm certain that you intended it to be a serious post, but then your NTP genes interfered, you started doubting what you just wrote, and to save your future ass, you chose to call it 'sarcasm' or just an 'opinion' so that no one will tear you apart. Oh, NTPs...

NTJs focus on their weaknesses too. Albeit, our method is different: when we find a flaw in ourselves, our next step is to ask 'Can it be overcome?'. If the answer is yes, we overcome it. If the answer is no, we accept it and keep it in our minds to not let this weakness interfere in our tasks in the future. NTPs, on the other hand, prefer to ask the question 'Why do I have this weakness?', and that's where they get stuck, because not all weaknesses are fixable. In fact, most are not. Which is why NTPs stagnate, whereas NTJs keep going forward. 

As for your experience of people being slow, it's more related to intelligence than to type. But even then, I find that NTPs are extremely slow in thinking objectively. I had a debate with an ENTP some days ago on another forum. We had to decide which is better for self-improvement, self-scrutiny or debating/peer review/second or third party critics. He advocated the former and I the latter. I listed the biases involved in self-scrutiny which do not interfere in debating, and of course I cited my sources. His response was that these biases should also interfere in other methods _logically_. Well, who the hell cares that reality doesn't follow a logical structure? the only panacea to those biases is to get a second opinion and you are telling me that it_ should _not work _logically_. It does work, regardless of all your beliefs on whether it should or should not. That's where the debate should have ended but that guy seemed to be in pursuit of denying reality, denying years of research, denying what has worked since antiquity, denying what would still work as long as we are humans, only to forward his agenda. 

That guy boasts an IQ above 130 too. But if he wasn't retarded and slow, I don't know who was.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Stephen Hawking -


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

*NO need to answer at all.

Answering give away to everyone else so just leave it unanswered.

If you know the answer, you probably smarter than AVG population!


*


I kinda of give a hint in my post, hehe.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

More


























*AGAIN. NO NEED TO ANSWER!!!*


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I self estimate that my IQ is around 150. I took an internet test one time that said I was smart and also asked for my email and zip code, and also 150 is a really nice round number. Although, I was feeling sick that day and plus IQ tests don't measure every type of intelligence so it's possible that my score was underestimated due to the test's inability to factor in that I make really tasty cupcakes and am good at parallel parking in my truck.

So yeah, probably at least 160. I don't feel bad about my super low score though, because even though some people would say I'm a "genius" and most people take such things very seriously I personally think that they don't matter at all and 160 isn't that high anyway.


----------



## RexMaximus (Jun 29, 2016)

BlackDog said:


> I self estimate that my IQ is around 150. I took an internet test one time that said I was smart and also asked for my email and zip code, and also 150 is a really nice round number. Although, I was feeling sick that day and plus IQ tests don't measure every type of intelligence so it's possible that my score was underestimated due to the test's inability to factor in that I make really tasty cupcakes and am good at parallel parking in my truck.
> 
> So yeah, probably at least 160. I don't feel bad about my super low score though, because even though some people would say I'm a "genius" and most people take such things very seriously I personally think that they don't matter at all and 160 isn't that high anyway.


Reading that first sentence, I thought you were serious for a minute


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Why is basic algebra considered an iq test on social media these days? Smh



Stawker said:


> I'm certain that you intended it to be a serious post, but then your NTP genes interfered, you started doubting what you just wrote, and to save your future ass, you chose to call it 'sarcasm' or just an 'opinion' so that no one will tear you apart. Oh, NTPs...
> 
> NTJs focus on their weaknesses too. Albeit, our method is different: when we find a flaw in ourselves, our next step is to ask 'Can it be overcome?'. If the answer is yes, we overcome it. If the answer is no, we accept it and keep it in our minds to not let this weakness interfere in our tasks in the future. NTPs, on the other hand, prefer to ask the question 'Why do I have this weakness?', and that's where they get stuck, because not all weaknesses are fixable. In fact, most are not. Which is why NTPs stagnate, whereas NTJs keep going forward.
> 
> ...


There's an NTP gene now?
Evolution at its finest.
My DNA is telling me to mention that MBTI does not run via gene theory. 

Naturally, there are only so many blanket statements I can make based on my own experience before some other INTP starts to wonder what the hell I’m talking about.
You seem to have no such reservations, and I have no idea who you’re basing this on because "deluded genius" sounds nothing like either of the INTPs I have known in real life nor many that I have met online.

Asking ‘why’ something is wrong is the most beneficial in most cases. You can spend years patching over bugs, or you can look at the source, find the problem, and fix it.
Although you seem to be equating “NTJ-ness” with Behaviorism and “NTP-ness” with Psychoanalysis, and as there’s a general consensus that Freud was off-base, that doesn’t leave me much to argue with psychologically. 
How are you supposed to know what’s fixable until you try? 

Stagnation.
That seems a bit contradictory since one of our creeds is finding new ways to look at the world.
Maybe it looks that way to NTJs because our own growth as a person seems less important than the growth of our ideas.

This ENTP was clearly debating with you, so his views seem inconsistent with his behavior. Are you sure he even believed himself?


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Tamehagane said:


> There's an NTP gene now?
> Evolution at its finest.
> My DNA is telling me to mention that MBTI does not run via gene theory.


B**ch, there might be.



> Naturally, there are only so many blanket statements I can make based on my own experience before some other INTP starts to wonder what the hell I’m talking about.
> You seem to have no such reservations, and I have no idea who you’re basing this on because "deluded genius" sounds nothing like either of the INTPs I have known in real life nor many that I have met online.


You addressed all the blanket statements I've made as if they were legitimate. You didn't refute them, you chose to counter them. If 'deluded genius' is the only blanket statement you have refuted, it's because it wasn't a blanket statement so it never needed refutation in the first place.

Now, onto the meaty part. 



> Asking ‘why’ something is wrong is the most beneficial in most cases. You can spend years patching over bugs, or you can look at the source, find the problem, and fix it.
> Although you seem to be equating “NTJ-ness” with Behaviorism and “NTP-ness” with Psychoanalysis, and as there’s a general consensus that Freud was off-base, that doesn’t leave me much to argue with psychologically.
> How are you supposed to know what’s fixable until you try?


I'm talking problems in one's self. I knew an INTP who couldn't have enough of whining about his physical appearance. Another INTP who remained insecure about his intelligence for the whole time I knew him. Oh and the best one: My ex. She just couldn't stop whining about having messed things up in the past and when I scolded her for that, she spent the entire next week sobbing about things not being the same as before. It seems that NTPs have a good attitude towards the world, but not towards themselves. 

Give me a problem, and I'll tell you whether it's fixable or not. 



> Stagnation.
> That seems a bit contradictory since one of our creeds is finding new ways to look at the world.
> Maybe it looks that way to NTJs because our own growth as a person seems less important than the growth of our ideas.
> 
> This ENTP was clearly debating with you, so his views seem inconsistent with his behavior. Are you sure he even believed himself?


Hmmm, plausible. I need visible progress to qualify it as progress. Perhaps NTPs can rely on the invisible too. I think I should envy them.

He was ENTP. Do you really think he needed to believe in order to debate?


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> B**ch, there might be.


Ohoho, who’s speculating now?



Stawker said:


> You addressed all the blanket statements I've made as if they were legitimate. You didn't refute them, you chose to counter them. If 'deluded genius' is the only blanket statement you have refuted, it's because it wasn't a blanket statement so it never needed refutation in the first place.


I mean, if I stopped dealing with blanket statement, I'd be out of a forum.
I get the feeling that argument needs to be symbolized. I'm not sure how valid it is.

I have to write a paper within 40 minutes though, so another time perhaps.



Stawker said:


> I'm talking problems in one's self. I knew an INTP who couldn't have enough of whining about his physical appearance. Another INTP who remained insecure about his intelligence for the whole time I knew him. Oh and the best one: My ex. She just couldn't stop whining about having messed things up in the past and when I scolded her for that, she spent the entire next week sobbing about things not being the same as before. It seems that NTPs have a good attitude towards the world, but not towards themselves.
> 
> Give me a problem, and I'll tell you whether it's fixable or not.


Mhm. And knowing the legendary tact of NTJ types, I bet you were _really_ helpful about it.
There are certain levels of maturity that are completely unrelated to MBTI type.
Unlike eye color. That has a super high correlation.

I know my problems are fixable…
In fact, aside from physical injury or disease, I’m having a harder time thinking of problems that aren’t fixable.
Do you have an example?



Stawker said:


> Hmmm, plausible. I need visible progress to qualify it as progress. Perhaps NTPs can rely on the invisible too. I think I should envy them.
> 
> He was ENTP. Do you really think he needed to believe in order to debate?


It's a chill lifestyle. You should try it sometime.

I meant you criticized the ENTP for not being objective while arguing for something he probably didn't believe in... oh never mind.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Tamehagane said:


> Ohoho, who’s speculating now?


You, and me. That was meant to be a joke but you 'speculated' that I was serious. Come on, tamey. 



> I mean, if I stopped dealing with blanket statement, I'd be out of a forum.
> I get the feeling that argument needs to be symbolized. I'm not sure how valid it is.
> 
> I have to write a paper within 40 minutes though, so another time perhaps.


Well, I appreciate that you have that awareness, but try to deal with blanket statements that actually are blanket statements. Or, if you wish to vilify blanket statements, then try to refute, not counter, them. You failed to do both. 

Symbolized? You mean, formalized (formal logic)? Hell fkn naw. You can't formalize an argument like this without spending weeks on it. 



> Mhm. And knowing the legendary tact of NTJ types, I bet you were _really_ helpful about it.
> There are certain levels of maturity that are completely unrelated to MBTI type.
> Unlike eye color. That has a super high correlation.
> 
> ...


Hmmmm..... it's strange how I've come across more INTPs than INTJs yet I have only seen one mature INTP (24 years old) whereas I know at least 4 INTJs (my age fellows) who were mature. Is late maturity related to type? just wondering.

What the hell, Tamey. Physical injuries are fixable, unless they're too extreme. Disease is also fixable, unless it's cancer or Kuru or something. 

Example? I've given two already. Read carefully. 



> It's a chill lifestyle. You should try it sometime.
> 
> I meant you criticized the ENTP for not being objective while arguing for something he probably didn't believe in... oh never mind.


Ruminating to the point of anxiety is chill? Interesting.

How is that any measure of objectivity? Rationality and logic are independent of belief.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Tamehagane said:


> Why is basic algebra considered an iq test on social media these days? Smh


Why not? IQ should include ALL common subjects in school that includes Math, English, Basic Science, Basic History

What good is that you can't do good on basic school subjects and only good at seeing patterns (Because of your high Ni?) and street smarts (Emotional IQ)?


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> You, and me. That was meant to be a joke but you 'speculated' that I was serious. Come on, tamey.


*Tamey?!?!?!?!?!*











Stawker said:


> Well, I appreciate that you have that awareness, but try to deal with blanket statements that actually are blanket statements. Or, if you wish to vilify blanket statements, then try to refute, not counter, them. You failed to do both.
> 
> Symbolized? You mean, formalized (formal logic)? Hell fkn naw. You can't formalize an argument like this without spending weeks on it.


Excuses, excuses. Why, are you afraid something deep, dark and illogical might come into the light?
You know that I’m kidding, right... I can never tell with you J types.

What was I supposed to be refuting again? I don't remember seeing any actual arguments, just you being an ass and assuming your knowledge of INTPs can be distributed onto the majority.



Stawker said:


> Hmmmm..... it's strange how I've come across more INTPs than INTJs yet I have only seen one mature INTP (24 years old) whereas I know at least 4 INTJs (my age fellows) who were mature. Is late maturity related to type? just wondering.
> 
> What the hell, Tamey. Physical injuries are fixable, unless they're too extreme. Disease is also fixable, unless it's cancer or Kuru or something.
> 
> Example? I've given two already. Read carefully.


That seems strange to me too, because the INTPs I've known have been charmingly quirky, and the INTJ I know treats every conversation like a death match.

Of course I didn't mean that an injury isn't fixable, I meant that such things as schizophrenia or physical injury would have negative effects that cannot be worked through by psychology alone.

Damn, this just happened the other day, too.
Pretty soon I'm going to have to revert to Vulcan-speak.



Stawker said:


> Ruminating to the point of anxiety is chill? Interesting.
> 
> How is that any measure of objectivity? Rationality and logic are independent of belief.


I actually have really low anxiety, but I thank my (ISTP) Father for that.
....for creating an environment that fosters chillness, that is.
Unless there's an IxTP gene, in which case I need to clone myself.

Maybe the argument was illogical, but if said ENTP was arguing for something they don't believe in, they are not under the influence of their own feelings, which would make it objective. Objectivity vs Subjectivity has no bearing on whether the argument is valid.



LoveDragonDon said:


> Why not? IQ should include ALL common subjects in school that includes Math, English, Basic Science, Basic History
> 
> What good is that you can't do good on basic school subjects and only good at seeing patterns (Because of your high Ni?) and street smarts (Emotional IQ)?


*well 

IQ is generally considered to be more along the lines of fluid intelligence, but if you want to make IQ essentially meaningless you can use Gardner's multiple intelligence model.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

LoveDragonDon said:


> IQ should include ALL common subjects that includes Math, English, Basic Science, Basic History
> 
> What good is that you can't do good on basic school subjects and only good at seeing patterns (Because of your high Ni?)


Well, it was only basic algebra. But the idea behind cognitive tests is that everyone is on a level playing field, because either nobody has any previous experience with the tasks, or everyone is assumed to have had the same opportunities to learn the material that's being tested. What matters is how well you can solve unfamiliar problems and have insights beyond what you know already. That's why pure pattern-recognition tests exist, although the assumption that they're actually 'fairer' is dubious.

If you want to test someone's ability at an actual intellectual task, you should probably give them a physics test or something. But that doesn't have the same mystique around it.


----------



## Judgment_Knight (Feb 1, 2015)

Haha! Another INTP spawns! (conversation sounded interesting ^^ Also nice taste in digital art)



Stawker said:


> Hmmmm..... it's strange how I've come across more INTPs than INTJs yet I have only seen one mature INTP (24 years old) whereas I know at least 4 INTJs (my age fellows) who were mature. Is late maturity related to type? just wondering.


Aghhh, I got the major cringe from that statement. It's a little incestuous to correlate type to maturity, esp. since y'all are both NTJs. I see where you're coming from though. Wayyy better than your typical NTP (who sacrifices authority for likeability). Of course, nobody so young is able to be a rational human being!



Stawker said:


> Ruminating to the point of anxiety is chill? Interesting.
> 
> How is that any measure of objectivity? Rationality and logic are independent of belief.


I mean, it's one thing to be chill about others (that's why NTPs are considered chill), but NTPs have their entire self as arsenal against themselves, nothing gets more objective than full control of everything you protect and defend. Yeah, it's a fatal flaw to ruminate until stagnation. Eventually we (probably the turbulent INTPs) come to terms with social stasis and come up with nice solutions/ways to think about self loathing for other anxious people ^^


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Judgment_Knight said:


> Aghhh, I got the major cringe from that statement. It's a little incestuous to correlate type to maturity, esp. since y'all are both NTJs. I see where you're coming from though. Wayyy better than your typical NTP (who sacrifices authority for likeability). Of course, nobody so young is able to be a rational human being!


_Who's_ an NTJ?


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Tamehagane said:


> *well
> 
> IQ is generally considered to be more along the lines of fluid intelligence, but if you want to make IQ essentially meaningless you can use Gardner's multiple intelligence model.


You should have multiple intelligence, at least including those that are MORE basic like math/science and not like College-level hard English.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

Manuscript said:


> Well, it was only basic algebra. But the idea behind *cognitive tests* is that everyone is on a level playing field, because either nobody has any previous experience with the tasks, or everyone is assumed to have had the same opportunities to learn the material that's being tested. What matters is how well you can solve unfamiliar problems and have insights beyond what you know already. That's why pure pattern-recognition tests exist, although the assumption that they're actually 'fairer' is dubious.
> 
> If you want to test someone's ability at an actual intellectual task, you should probably give them a physics test or something. But that doesn't have the same mystique around it.


I am sorry that Math is your weakness, but it isn't mine. I LOVE Math and I COMPLETELY feel they are the basic element of Intelligence, thus should be always included!!!

You know, it completely baffles me that America generally sucks at Math. All the other developing countries they are ALL much better at Math and prefer it the most, than American people!

Singapore, China, Korea, Japan, Canada, Germany, Australia, UK, France... I mean they all rank better than US in math. WTF?


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Judgment_Knight said:


> Aghhh, I got the major cringe from that statement. It's a little incestuous to correlate type to maturity, esp. since y'all are both NTJs. I see where you're coming from though. Wayyy better than your typical NTP (who sacrifices authority for likeability). Of course, nobody so young is able to be a rational human being!


HowthehellamIrationalthen?



> I mean, it's one thing to be chill about others (that's why NTPs are considered chill), but NTPs have their entire self as arsenal against themselves, nothing gets more objective than full control of everything you protect and defend. Yeah, it's a fatal flaw to ruminate until stagnation. Eventually we (probably the turbulent INTPs) come to terms with social stasis and come up with nice solutions/ways to think about self loathing for other anxious people ^^


Am I supposed to congratulate INTPs for that? Just how the hell do you not suffocate in your appropriated corners where you curl up and spend entire weekends ruminating your past embarrassments and musing the uncertainty of your future?



Tamehagane said:


> Excuses, excuses. Why, are you afraid something deep, dark and illogical might come into the light?
> You know that I’m kidding, right... I can never tell with you J types.
> 
> What was I supposed to be refuting again? I don't remember seeing any actual arguments, just you being an ass and assuming your knowledge of INTPs can be distributed onto the majority.


Bring out the blanket statements from my original reply to you, formulate them in clear wording, and then tell me that you didn't accept them (by countering). If they really were blanket statements, you would choose to refute.



> That seems strange to me too, because the INTPs I've known have been charmingly quirky, and the INTJ I know treats every conversation like a death match.
> 
> Of course I didn't mean that an injury isn't fixable, I meant that such things as schizophrenia or physical injury would have negative effects that cannot be worked through by psychology alone.
> 
> ...


Every conversation has the potential to change your life. Even if you're going to joke, make sure you do it seriously. At least, this is my NTJ philosophy behind treating every conversation like a death match.

Every weakness has negative effects. The question is to remove the weakness so we can overcome the effects. 
The examples I listed were physical attractiveness (you can't do shit about it beyond proper hygiene and good diet) and intelligence (stop fucking worrying about it and do what you do). You can't 'fix' them. They're there with you, you can only build on them.

I agree. Vulcan > Directx12



> I actually have really low anxiety, but I thank my (ISTP) Father for that.
> ....for creating an environment that fosters chillness, that is.
> Unless there's an IxTP gene, in which case I need to clone myself.
> 
> Maybe the argument was illogical, but if said ENTP was arguing for something they don't believe in, they are not under the influence of their own feelings, which would make it objective. Objectivity vs Subjectivity has no bearing on whether the argument is valid.


Mfw you need an ISTP father to be chill. 
I can be chill in any situation. This further proves NTJ > NTP.

Dat sophistry. NTPs just never disappoint. As if that objectivity has any connection to the objectivity of your argument. Your disposition maybe entirely objective, but you may still be denying reality; you can choose to call yourself objective but your argument will still be stupid and not objective.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> Bring out the blanket statements from my original reply to you, formulate them in clear wording, and then tell me that you didn't accept them (by countering). If they really were blanket statements, you would choose to refute.


*ahem*
On second-read through, I see that most of your statements were made in the context of your own experience.
So congratulations.
You were right.
Technically.
On this count.



Stawker said:


> Every conversation has the potential to change your life. Even if you're going to joke, make sure you do it seriously. At least, this is my NTJ philosophy behind treating every conversation like a death match.





Stawker said:


> I agree. Vulcan > Directx12












I hope that joke was made with the utmost solemnity.



Stawker said:


> Every weakness has negative effects. The question is to remove the weakness so we can overcome the effects.
> The examples I listed were physical attractiveness (you can't do shit about it beyond proper hygiene and good diet) and intelligence (stop fucking worrying about it and do what you do). You can't 'fix' them. They're there with you, you can only build on them.


Okay... I wouldn't say you're wrong about that.
Are you saying that this INTP was worrying about "why" they weren't physically attractive/intelligent?
Since that was no choice of their own, that seems like it enters a different sphere, such as religion, philosophy, biology, etc.



Stawker said:


> Mfw you need an ISTP father to be chill.
> I can be chill in any situation. This further proves NTJ > NTP.


Hah! If being chill makes one type better than the other, it's quite clear to whom the victory belongs.
I think perhaps you mean "collected and composed," whereas I was implying the definition "relaxed," or my personal preference, "chill-axed," which we all know is the definition of xxTP.



Stawker said:


> Dat sophistry. NTPs just never disappoint. As if that objectivity has any connection to the objectivity of your argument. Your disposition maybe entirely objective, but you may still be denying reality; you can choose to call yourself objective but your argument will still be stupid and not objective.


Silly Te users. Objective does not equal "being right." 



LoveDragonDon said:


> I am sorry that Math is your weakness, but it isn't mine. I LOVE Math and I COMPLETELY feel they are the basic element of Intelligence, thus should be always included!!!


...I would take another look at your motivations, if I were you.


----------



## LoveDragonDon (May 31, 2014)

You can't just say why x or y are on an IQ test cuz you are not good on those subjects.

Intelligence is about ability to do things. Math as the MOST important subject of this universe of course need to take part! When you get taught in school on it, you ought to know how to apply it or you will just get a low score on it, it's very fair!


I am pretty bad at English, but if they say it should be also on there because they are basic things you need to know then of course they should be on there.


Actually, I think I will get at least 50-70% English questions right on IQ tests, because my weakness is the Grammar not much what words mean.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Tamehagane said:


> I hope that joke was made with the utmost solemnity.


You bet I did.



> Okay... I wouldn't say you're wrong about that.
> Are you saying that this INTP was worrying about "why" they weren't physically attractive/intelligent?
> Since that was no choice of their own, that seems like it enters a different sphere, such as religion, philosophy, biology, etc.


Yes. And take a few more examples: Parent's negligence, bad childhood, past embarrassments, business failures etc. All these situations are not fixable anymore. One can only build upon them. But the INTPs I know would choose to lament all (probably because of Si?) than build on at least one.

Interesting to see that your mind quickly went to religion, philosophy, and shit. My mind just didn't go there. It just didn't matter to me why it is this way when I know that 1) I can never know it 2) it won't fix it. 



> Hah! If being chill makes one type better than the other, it's quite clear to whom the victory belongs.
> I think perhaps you mean "collected and composed," whereas I was implying the definition "relaxed," or my personal preference, "chill-axed," which we all know is the definition of xxTP.


You may generally be relaxed but just consider how easy it is to disturb your 'chillax' mode. It seems INTPs only win under some particular circumstances; and in case they aren't granted those circumstances (IMAGINE HAVING AN ESFJ DAD), they break down.



> Silly Te users. Objective does not equal "being right."


It does, in this context.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> [snip]


The irony is that personality is stable enough across the lifespan that if NTPs realised they were less competent than NTJs, they would run the risk of worrying about something that they can't change, which is precisely what you were accusing them of. It's a Catch-22. Perhaps you want a response along the lines of "I know I will never be as cool as you, but I am determined to mend my NTP ways as best I can. I'm ordering a subscription to _Forbes_ as we speak!"?

Well, I'm not so concerned about what the lifestyle section of _Forbes_ has to say, but on the subject of investments, I'd recommend to any society planning to grow the next generation in the vat that they include some NTPs. There are some decent thinkers in the mix, and they're less likely to, say, burn down a church or install a totalitarian regime. Despite any decreased productivity, it's a fair trade on a societal level.

How is Richard Feynman an ESFP, anyway? In my mind he's the archetypal ENTP.


----------



## Judgment_Knight (Feb 1, 2015)

Tamehagane said:


> _Who's_ an NTJ?


Ah, just Stawker and his 18 year old INTJ buddies ^^




Stawker said:


> HowthehellamIrationalthen?


You define your own terms for rationality. Je ne sais pas!



Stawker said:


> Am I supposed to congratulate INTPs for that? Just how the hell do you not suffocate in your appropriated corners where you curl up and spend entire weekends ruminating your past embarrassments and musing the uncertainty of your future?


No, we definitely suffocate in all-encompassing criticism, but it's used more as a landing board for creative thinking. 

The Art of War states that "Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear." Anything goes when everything is at stake. You said yourself that you take each conversation as a learning opportunity. Ruminating is similar, we learn different lessons from the same situation. Sure, everything derives from the self, but you can't articulate it until you approach it. Also, it would be excessive if you treated every conversation like a death match XD No pressure if that's your choice though!

Of course, wallowing in self pity 24/7 is no way to live!



Stawker said:


> You may generally be relaxed but just consider how easy it is to disturb your 'chillax' mode. It seems INTPs only win under some particular circumstances; and in case they aren't granted those circumstances (IMAGINE HAVING AN ESFJ DAD), they break down.


Side Comment: I've got an ENTJ dad and an ESFJ mom XD Breaking down, not as much as you'd think. Actually my ENTP cousin was more of a terror.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Judgment_Knight said:


> You define your own terms for rationality. Je ne sais pas!


That's a severe insult to my Te. There is only one type of rationality: That which accords to reality. If I can adduce something as my evidence, and it holds up, I'm rational. There's no other rationality.



> No, we definitely suffocate in all-encompassing criticism, but it's used it more as a landing board for creative thinking.
> 
> The Art of War states that "Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear." Anything goes when everything is at stake.
> 
> ...


If I'm not goofing around here, then what else am I doing? And yes, I consider this goofing around. I'm having fun, _in all seriousness_.

I will never be arrogant enough to claim that everything is derived from my self. What I can derive from myself are only facts about myself and I'm not the entire world. I still have no answer regarding the utility of self-pitying and needless wallowing. When one can so easily accept reality and solve the problems, I see no reason why one must solve reality and accept the problems (as NTPs are wont to do). 



Manuscript said:


> The irony is that personality is stable enough across the lifespan that if NTPs realised they were less competent than NTJs, they would run the risk of worrying about something that they can't change, which is precisely what you were accusing them of. It's a Catch-22. Perhaps you want a response along the lines of "I know I will never be as cool as you, but I am determined to mend my NTP ways as best I can. I'm ordering a subscription to _Forbes_ as we speak!"?
> 
> Well, I'm not so concerned about what the lifestyle section of _Forbes_ has to say, but on the subject of investments, I'd recommend to any society planning to grow the next generation in the vat that they include some NTPs. There are some decent thinkers in the mix, and they're less likely to, say, burn down a church or install a totalitarian regime. Despite any decreased productivity, it's a fair trade on a societal level.
> 
> How is Richard Feynman an ESFP, anyway? In my mind he's the archetypal ENTP.


Or perhaps I want a response which explains to me how an NTP would survive, and win, in situations that simply don't accord with his temperament. So far, I know that an NTP needs a properly chill household, a job in which she is totally independent, a relationship in which she's left alone to her devices until she herself wishes to engage, a family which leaves her alone for most of the time. And I've also come to know that if I an NTP is deprived of those circumstances, she will break down.

Compare that to NTJs. We make do in most circumstances only because we're responsible. Save for stupidity, and abuse, I cannot think of any other situation where I, by my temperament, will be held back. I just wish to know how you would reconcile your fatal weaknesses with the idea that NTPs are not better nor worse than NTJs.

The MBTI connoisseurs say Feynman is ESFP. I have no idea what he is.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> Yes. And take a few more examples: Parent's negligence, bad childhood, past embarrassments, business failures etc. All these situations are not fixable anymore. One can only build upon them. But the INTPs I know would choose to lament all (probably because of Si?) than build on at least one.


Seeing as Si is our third function, it seems odd that it has apparently become your main view of INTPs.
One of our greatest strengths (and weaknesses) is our ability to forget everything else when we find one of our, as we call them, “obsessions.”
These are those times when we stay up until 4AM because we simply can’t pull ourselves away from whatever it is.
The times in between in, however, can be dreadfully boring. I believe this is when most INTPs end up becoming depressed, Si-ish, and find their addictions. It sounds like the ones you mentioned were at the low points of this cycle.
Of course this is where being a well-rounded individual comes in handy, because the long-term hobbies are lifesavers. These would be things like music, sports, friends if they exist at the time, etc. There are ways around it. Wallowing is for amateurs. The name of the game is suppression.



Judgment_Knight said:


> Of course, wallowing in self pity 24/7 is no way to live!


Spot on old chap!



Stawker said:


> Interesting to see that your mind quickly went to religion, philosophy, and shit. My mind just didn't go there. It just didn't matter to me why it is this way when I know that 1) I can never know it 2) it won't fix it.


Why do you bother?
What’s your reason for spending your entire life doing things and improving yourself? In the end you die, your money goes to someone else, people forget about you, and even if you’ve made the world a better place it isn’t doing you any good.
Have you already settled this for yourself?
Or do you really not care?




Stawker said:


> You may generally be relaxed but just consider how easy it is to disturb your 'chillax' mode. It seems INTPs only win under some particular circumstances; and in case they aren't granted those circumstances (IMAGINE HAVING AN ESFJ DAD), they break down.


….
Ugh.
ESFJs are alright, if a bit set in their ways.
I think an ESTJ dad would be worse.



Stawker said:


> It does, in this context.


Was this context literally “Objective Thinking?”


----------



## Judgment_Knight (Feb 1, 2015)

Stawker said:


> That's a severe insult to my Te. There is only one type of rationality: That which accords to reality. If I can adduce something as my evidence, and it holds up, I'm rational. There's no other rationality.


Yeahhh........good to know you agree with me that you define your own rationality. I mean, obviously there are things literally outside of your control, like, science is real, global warming (i hope) is real XD 



Stawker said:


> I will never be arrogant enough to claim that everything is derived from my self. What I can derive from myself are only facts about myself and I'm not the entire world. I still have no answer regarding the utility of self-pitying and needless wallowing. When one can so easily accept reality and solve the problems, I see no reason why one must solve reality and accept the problems (as NTPs are wont to do).


Nah, but you are arrogant enough to claim that whatever you believe is real. (Just kidding) Don't accuse us of thinking we understand the entire world, that's obviously besides the point and you know it. I'm not saying that everything is from the self rather than within one's understanding. NTPs just have elaborate ways of saying "it is what it is", and tend to try to eliminate bias as much as possible by not getting too attached to any one idea.



Stawker said:


> Or perhaps I want a response which explains to me how an NTP would survive, and win, in situations that simply don't accord with his temperament. So far, I know that an NTP needs a properly chill household, a job in which she is totally independent, a relationship in which she's left alone to her devices until she herself wishes to engage, a family which leaves her alone for most of the time. And I've also come to know that if I an NTP is deprived of those circumstances, she will break down.


ENTPs are better with their surroundings, but yeahh....of course INTPs probably wouldn't thrive in an environment they're not adapted to. Despite those circumstances, they still are INTP and will learn to deal with it, usually only because the situation requires them to and probably do the job soullessly. I actually know a lot of INTPs that were super pushed by their parents. Maybe their perspective is to balance the pushiness. It's also not like they're totally useless all the time. Usually if they care about what they're doing, they'll do it well. They tend to know what to do if they want to do it right.



Stawker said:


> Compare that to NTJs. We make do in most circumstances only because we're responsible. Save for stupidity, and abuse, I cannot think of any other situation where I, by my temperament, will be held back. I just wish to know how you would reconcile your fatal weaknesses with the idea that NTPs are not better nor worse than NTJs.


Y'all are responsible, but don't go the extra mile. You act with the whole picture in mind, but NTPs live by the moment. Lmao I'm not making the argument that one type is better than the other XD I get that some types are more adaptable than others.

The MBTI connoisseurs say Feynman is ESFP. I have no idea what he is.[/QUOTE]
Dude, ESFPs can be really smart XD


----------



## Judgment_Knight (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Tamehagane said:


> Seeing as Si is our third function, it seems odd that it has apparently become your main view of INTPs.
> One of our greatest strengths (and weaknesses) is our ability to forget everything else when we find one of our, as we call them, “obsessions.”
> These are those times when we stay up until 4AM because we simply can’t pull ourselves away from whatever it is.
> The times in between in, however, can be dreadfully boring. I believe this is when most INTPs end up becoming depressed, Si-ish, and find their addictions. It sounds like the ones you mentioned were at the low points of this cycle.
> Of course this is where being a well-rounded individual comes in handy, because the long-term hobbies are lifesavers. These would be things like music, sports, friends if they exist at the time, etc. There are ways around it. Wallowing is for amateurs. The name of the game is suppression.


That sounds like a huge weakness to me. That you cannot be happy without having an obsession, without having something to actively pursue, and moreover, that something _must_ hold your interest from the first moment or else it'll be abandoned and you'll be miserable again. Comparatively, I know the rule: Effort -> Reward -> Passion. The cycle for NTPs seems to be different: Passion -> Effort -> Reward. And that's stupid.



> Why do you bother?
> What’s your reason for spending your entire life doing things and improving yourself? In the end you die, your money goes to someone else, people forget about you, and even if you’ve made the world a better place it isn’t doing you any good.
> Have you already settled this for yourself?
> Or do you really not care?





> I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity which negates the Gods and raises rocks. He too, like Oedipus, concludes that all is well. Each dust particle, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain in itself forms a world. The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
> -Albert Camus


I crei everytim



> ….
> Ugh.
> ESFJs are alright, if a bit set in their ways.
> I think an ESTJ dad would be worse.


Trust me, ESTJ would be better. At least he'll have 'reasons' and not 'feelings'. Feelings are dogmatic.



> Was this context literally “Objective Thinking?”


No. But it required objective thinking.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Judgment_Knight said:


> Yeahhh........good to know you agree with me that you define your own rationality. I mean, obviously there are things literally outside of your control, like, science is real, global warming (i hope) is real XD


What? That's the opposite of what I said.



> Nah, but you are arrogant enough to claim that whatever you believe is real. (Just kidding) Don't accuse us of thinking we understand the entire world, that's obviously besides the point and you know it. I'm not saying that everything is from the self rather than within one's understanding. NTPs just have elaborate ways of saying "it is what it is", and tend to try to eliminate bias as much as possible by not getting too attached to any one idea.


And I'm also arrogant enough to give you the opportunity to prove me wrong -- how vile of me.

Bias? if we talk about bias, there's nothing more biased than self-scrutiny. If an NTP believes he can solve his issues independent of the world, he'll only be getting used to his issues instead of solving them. ''There is nothing so hard as not deceiving oneself'', said Ludwig Wittgenstein. To solve my inner problems, I must look outside. The inner horizon is distorted and to fix it, it must become a reflection of what I see outside. The NTP philosophy is the inverse of that.



> ENTPs are better with their surroundings, but yeahh....of course INTPs probably wouldn't thrive in an environment they're not adapted to. Despite those circumstances, they still are INTP and will learn to deal with it, usually only because the situation requires them to and probably do the job soullessly. I actually know a lot of INTPs that were super pushed by their parents. Maybe their perspective is to balance the pushiness. It's also not like they're totally useless all the time. Usually if they care about what they're doing, they'll do it well. They tend to know what to do if they want to do it right.


No one is adapted to his surroundings, by default. We adapt. The only difference is that NTJs adapt better, and NTPs worse. The NTPs will always wait for the ideal circumstances to unleash herself whereas the NTJ will work to create those ideal circumstances if not for himself, then for others. You're not helping me get a better opinion of NTPs. Their whole worldview seems corrupt and regressive.



> Y'all are responsible, but don't go the extra mile. You act with the whole picture in mind, but NTPs live by the moment. Lmao I'm not making the argument that one type is better than the other XD I get that some types are more adaptable than others.
> 
> Dude, ESFPs can be really smart XD


Of course you are not making that argument. I am. I am saying that NTJs are better than NTPs and you have to convince me that they're not. So far, you haven't. So keep going.

Well, isn't that my position? That intelligence is independent of MBTI? Read carefully.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> No one is adapted to his surroundings, by default. We adapt. The only difference is that NTJs adapt better, and NTPs worse. The NTPs will always wait for the ideal circumstances to unleash herself whereas the NTJ will work to create those ideal circumstances if not for himself, then for others. You're not helping me get a better opinion of NTPs. Their whole worldview seems corrupt and regressive.


Oh, you're a Type 8. I wouldn't hold out much hope of being convinced that INTPs are equal to ENTJs going by Type 8 values, though I'd think ENTPs would occasionally pass muster.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Manuscript said:


> Oh, you're a Type 8. I wouldn't hold out much hope of being convinced that INTPs are equal to ENTJs going by Type 8 values, though I'd think ENTPs would occasionally pass muster.


Let's not introduce extra variables. My focus, in this entire discourse, is more on perspectives than on types. I don't care if you're an INTP. I only care about your perspective, and NTP just happens to be my heuristic for that regressive, defeated, perspective. NTPs share that worldview, more or less, generally and I want to see how that perspective will ever help them survive outside their niche.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> That sounds like a huge weakness to me. That you cannot be happy without having an obsession, without having something to actively pursue, and moreover, that something _must_ hold your interest from the first moment or else it'll be abandoned and you'll be miserable again. Comparatively, I know the rule: Effort -> Reward -> Passion. The cycle for NTPs seems to be different: Passion -> Effort -> Reward. And that's stupid.


I see where you got that idea from, but somehow it doesn't seem to work out like that. 
I am but a simple fellow. Someone tells a joke, I laugh, I am happy. I read a good book, I am happy. I drink a good cup of tea or coffee, I am happy. Probably different types of happiness. 

Passions don't completely fade, anyway, I think that's an ENTP thing. They just ebb and flow in intensity.



> I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity which negates the Gods and raises rocks. He too, like Oedipus, concludes that all is well. Each dust particle, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain in itself forms a world. The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
> -Albert Camus


Isn't that a tad... subjective for you?



Stawker said:


> Trust me, ESTJ would be better. At least he'll have 'reasons' and not 'feelings'. Feelings are dogmatic.


If his "reasons" were based on flawed assumptions, the result would still be negative. At least with a feeling type, you could play on their sympathies. 



Stawker said:


> No. But it required objective thinking.


If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the objectivity in your argument was superior because it aligned with reality?
But is reality, in fact, the way that things should be?
If there is a better system, wouldn't the ideal trump the current system even if it is an impossibility?

Niches can be created anywhere, by the way.


----------



## Judgment_Knight (Feb 1, 2015)

Stawker said:


> That sounds like a huge weakness to me. That you cannot be happy without having an obsession, without having something to actively pursue, and moreover, that something _must_ hold your interest from the first moment or else it'll be abandoned and you'll be miserable again. Comparatively, I know the rule: Effort -> Reward -> Passion. The cycle for NTPs seems to be different: Passion -> Effort -> Reward. And that's stupid.


It's true that we have to find something we like about one thing to become interested in it, but it's much more rewarding to like something for its own merit rather than relying on a system for encouragement. 

Also, isn't the general consensus "Follow your passion"?

We derive excitement from realization/understanding the beauty of something. Similarly, I don't think you're motivated by being rewarded for solely tangible rewards and being perceived as successful?



Stawker said:


> What? That's the opposite of what I said.


Nono, the opposite of what you meant, but not what you said.




Stawker said:


> Bias? if we talk about bias, there's nothing more biased than self-scrutiny. If an NTP believes he can solve his issues independent of the world, he'll only be getting used to his issues instead of solving them. ''There is nothing so hard as not deceiving oneself'', said Ludwig Wittgenstein. To solve my inner problems, I must look outside. The inner horizon is distorted and to fix it, it must become a reflection of what I see outside. The NTP philosophy is the inverse of that.


While it's the most biased when placed in comparison to others, it's the most objective to the self. Same thing with your passion, reward, and effort cycle; context/where one starts shapes the perspective, but yeah, it's still the same thing. That's like the entire MBTI




Stawker said:


> No one is adapted to his surroundings, by default. We adapt. The only difference is that NTJs adapt better, and NTPs worse. The NTPs will always wait for the ideal circumstances to unleash herself whereas the NTJ will work to create those ideal circumstances if not for himself, then for others. You're not helping me get a better opinion of NTPs. Their whole worldview seems corrupt and regressive.


Yeah, I don't think NTJs adapt better, rather than the system aligns better with their work ethic (haha, that's such a troll argument). 

I don't think ENTPs wait for the ideal circumstances???? Woah, there are so many ENTP protesters and stuff. They legit call the authorities to vocalize their points. INTJs are wonderful at understanding the situation and acting effectively and levelheadedly. Imo ENTJs and INTPs (especially INTPs) are seen as the weak eggs in the NT family. This is like a squabble amongst kitchenware. Jkjk, everyone is different yet equal.

Tell me how the worldview is corrupt and regressive ^^



Stawker said:


> Of course you are not making that argument. I am. I am saying that NTJs are better than NTPs and you have to convince me that they're not. So far, you haven't. So keep going.
> 
> Well, isn't that my position? That intelligence is independent of MBTI? Read carefully.


Clarification; is this a debate format where we know we're compromising yet are forced to take opposing points? I read the ESFP comment like you thought he was probably a sophisticated intuitive because of his job XD I agree if you're saying that the connoisseurs are kind of ridiculous.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Judgment_Knight said:


> It's true that we have to find something we like about one thing to become interested in it, but it's much more rewarding to like something for its own merit rather than relying on a system for encouragement.
> 
> Also, isn't the general consensus "Follow your passion"?
> 
> We derive excitement from realization/understanding the beauty of something. Similarly, I don't think you're motivated by being rewarded for solely tangible rewards and being perceived as successful?


Psychological research says that the general consensus is stupid. True that you need some level of initial interest to begin, but it's only when you've worked your ass off on something, and have been rewarded for it -- by a greater understanding, or fame, or anything --, that you become 'passionate'. Can you imagine reading a wikipedia article on Neurology and then claiming, 'I'm passionate about Neurology' ?? of course you can't, because it's stupid. 



> Nono, the opposite of what you meant, but not what you said.


Still don't understand what you mean. You should re-read.



> While it's the most biased when placed in comparison to others, it's the most objective to the self. Same thing with your passion, reward, and effort cycle; context/where one starts shapes the perspective, but yeah, it's still the same thing. That's like the entire MBTI
> 
> Yeah, I don't think NTJs adapt better, rather than the system aligns better with their work ethic (haha, that's such a troll argument).


Ah.... Ok. Not sure I understand it but it's at least an attempt at explaining the utterly elusive 'self-improvement' of NTP.



> I don't think ENTPs wait for the ideal circumstances???? Woah, there are so many ENTP protesters and stuff. They legit call the authorities to vocalize their points. INTJs are wonderful at understanding the situation and acting effectively and levelheadedly. Imo ENTJs and INTPs (especially INTPs) are seen as the weak eggs in the NT family. This is like a squabble amongst kitchenware. Jkjk, everyone is different yet equal.
> 
> Tell me how the worldview is corrupt and regressive ^^


Protesting =/= right course of action. To enact a change, one must find the flaw and fix it. To cry for others to come and fix the flaws that perturb you is no different from remaining passive till the ideal circumstances come about.

I think I've made it plenty clear how your worldview is regressive.



> Clarification; is this a debate format where we know we're compromising yet are forced to take opposing points? I read the ESFP comment like you thought he was probably a sophisticated intuitive because of his job XD I agree if you're saying that the connoisseurs are kind of ridiculous.


Ugh, I mentioned Feynman as an ESFP who was extremely good at logic/math. You're misconstruing my point. 



Tamehagane said:


> I see where you got that idea from, but somehow it doesn't seem to work out like that.
> I am but a simple fellow. Someone tells a joke, I laugh, I am happy. I read a good book, I am happy. I drink a good cup of tea or coffee, I am happy. Probably different types of happiness.
> 
> Passions don't completely fade, anyway, I think that's an ENTP thing. They just ebb and flow in intensity.


You laugh to a joke, you read a good book, you drink a good cup of tea or coffee, and then you sit alone on the balcony and suddenly recall that you still don't have a job you like, not a subject you're passionate about, not a thing you'd want to spend the rest of your life on. Damn! happiness has grown wings, it's flying away.

It's always better to pick a pup and grow it into a well-behaved doggo than wait for a well-behaved doggo to pass you by and be confronted by the realization that you're not worthy of it, that you don't have the money for it. 



> Isn't that a tad... subjective for you?


Sure is. The objective world doesn't give a shit about my reasons. It's indifferent. It couldn't care less whether I believe in a God or not, it just goes on. The search for meaning is a subjective search, it's all my own. So I must find a subjective answer.



> If his "reasons" were based on flawed assumptions, the result would still be negative. At least with a feeling type, you could play on their sympathies.


Someone who begins with reason, no matter how flawed, has higher chances of listening to reason than someone who does not. Sympathies don't always work cuz Fi.....



> If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the objectivity in your argument was superior because it aligned with reality?
> But is reality, in fact, the way that things should be?
> If there is a better system, wouldn't the ideal trump the current system even if it is an impossibility?
> 
> Niches can be created anywhere, by the way.


The argument focused on how things are. We had two means of self-improvement and we needed only investigate which one of them is better. We weren't creating future contingency plans. We were, so to say, choosing between two cars, which one is better suited to our needs.

You can build your house anywhere, as long as suitable conditions are provided. You may choose to build your house in a forest but be prepared to deal with bugs, animals, water shortages, poor sanitation etc.


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> You laugh to a joke, you read a good book, you drink a good cup of tea or coffee, and then you sit alone on the balcony and suddenly recall that you still don't have a job you like, not a subject you're passionate about, not a thing you'd want to spend the rest of your life on. Damn! happiness has grown wings, it's flying away.
> 
> It's always better to pick a pup and grow it into a well-behaved doggo than wait for a well-behaved doggo to pass you by and be confronted by the realization that you're not worthy of it, that you don't have the money for it.


I intend to enjoy my job very much, thank you.
When I’m sitting out on the balcony alone, the only thing I’ll be wondering is why my well-behaved doggo isn’t allowed in fancy apartments.

Well, meh. I’d rather have a wolf anyway.

We _are_ still capable of enjoying something even if the subject isn’t an obsession.
_Nor do we revert to a state of abject despair at every given point that we don’t have endorphins flowing through our cranium!!!!!!!!_



Stawker said:


> Sure is. The objective world doesn't give a shit about my reasons. It's indifferent. It couldn't care less whether I believe in a God or not, it just goes on. The search for meaning is a subjective search, it's all my own. So I must find a subjective answer.


It seems that you decided that there is no objective meaning subjectively.



Stawker said:


> Someone who begins with reason, no matter how flawed, has higher chances of listening to reason than someone who does not. Sympathies don't always work cuz Fi.....


ESFJs top function is Fe.
If an ESFJ had some sort of inferiority complex with logic, they could be inclined to listen to any sort of pseudo-logic as authentic.
I could see this going places.
That would probably be an ISFJ though.
Now I'm just pulling this out of my ass...

This thread is overdue for some graphics.
Too much text on this page.











Stawker said:


> The argument focused on how things are. We had two means of self-improvement and we needed only investigate which one of them is better. We weren't creating future contingency plans. We were, so to say, choosing between two cars, which one is better suited to our needs.


Alright, so it sounds like the ENTP tried to change the bounds of the argument.
That means you sufficiently won the first argument (based on your side of the story), so do you object to a lowly ENTP arguing to save his/her own pride?



Stawker said:


> You can build your house anywhere, as long as suitable conditions are provided. You may choose to build your house in a forest but be prepared to deal with bugs, animals, water shortages, poor sanitation etc.


Distance from civilization has an inverse correlation with internet access, so I will keep my wifi and adapt to a life of forced social encounters.
If the bugs were a metaphor for SJs, I think that's appropriate.


----------



## Stawker (Nov 30, 2016)

Tamehagane said:


> I intend to enjoy my job very much, thank you.
> When I’m sitting out on the balcony alone, the only thing I’ll be wondering is why my well-behaved doggo isn’t allowed in fancy apartments.
> 
> Well, meh. I’d rather have a wolf anyway.
> ...


You can't tell me that you're a happy person with Putin as your avatar. Just don't.



> It seems that you decided that there is no objective meaning subjectively.


If there is, we don't know. Which amounts to: there is none. Better is to keep working our arses off until we find the objective meaning unless you want to create fictions about the 'objective' meaning and foolishly believe in them.



> ESFJs top function is Fe.
> If an ESFJ had some sort of inferiority complex with logic, they could be inclined to listen to any sort of pseudo-logic as authentic.
> I could see this going places.
> That would probably be an ISFJ though.
> Now I'm just pulling this out of my ass...


I was talking about my Fi. 



> Alright, so it sounds like the ENTP tried to change the bounds of the argument.
> That means you sufficiently won the first argument (based on your side of the story), so do you object to a lowly ENTP arguing to save his/her own pride?


There's no pride more worthy than a step forward. 



> Distance from civilization has an inverse correlation with internet access, so I will keep my wifi and adapt to a life of forced social encounters.
> If the bugs were a metaphor for SJs, I think that's appropriate.


_GODDAMMITTAMEY!_


----------



## Tamehagane (Sep 2, 2014)

Stawker said:


> You can't tell me that you're a happy person with Putin as your avatar. Just don't.


What? I've had a respectable crush on the guy for at least a year now.
I'm just a happy kind of person.
If I expect the universe to collapse at any moment, it won't interrupt _my_ dinner when it's does.



Stawker said:


> If there is, we don't know. Which amounts to: there is none. Better is to keep working our arses off until we find the objective meaning unless you want to create fictions about the 'objective' meaning and foolishly believe in them.


I'm inclined to believe there is a right answer and many wrong answers, but I've also been indoctrinated from a young age.



Stawker said:


> I was talking about my Fi.


...oh.
Heh.
Don't you have some sort of inner turmoil to use as leverage?



Stawker said:


> There's no pride more worthy than a step forward.


The damage was done, the pride was damaged, the ENTP was grasping at straws.
The step forward wouldn't come until the next argument.



Stawker said:


> _GODDAMMITTAMEY!_


Righty-o. No idea how to respond to that, so I'm heading to sleep


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

Stawker said:


> Let's not introduce extra variables. My focus, in this entire discourse, is more on perspectives than on types. I don't care if you're an INTP. I only care about your perspective, and NTP just happens to be my heuristic for that regressive, defeated, perspective. NTPs share that worldview, more or less, generally and I want to see how that perspective will ever help them survive outside their niche.


Well, this is how it works:

1. Illogicality. NTPs are model-based thinkers who enjoy constructing logically-consistent systems. This is an effective approach in many fields. Empiricism requires effective models that can be fit to the data, although sometimes these can be formed through induction instead of constructed. NTPs are wary of heuristics, facts and figures, or inferred rules which do not fit together with anything else. Any belief system consists of a mutually-supporting web of beliefs. When these become highly-elaborated, the belief system can become resistant to change. NTPs can think flexibly by swapping and changing their models to fit the situation, as well as drawing on their store of factual knowledge. Overall, NTPs are not any more dogmatic than NTJs.

2. Laziness. NTJs have higher Conscientiousness than NTPs. The latter may appear to be indolent and capricious. They cannot seem to bulldoze through all opposition using willpower. NTPs tend to be individualists, but don't believe all relevant factors are within their control. However, at least INTPs are actually creatures of habit, and well-trained habits are more reliable and efficient than willpower. NTPs can create lifestyles for themselves that channel their energies productively in the long-term.

3. Mental Health. NTPs can engage in unhealthy levels of rumination and are less resilient against catastrophe, but NTJs are far more dangerous than NTPs when they do snap. The amount of suffering caused by human conflicts means this certainly can't be dismissed. Also, stomping on depressed people for being depressed is stupid.

4. Values. ENTJ 8s and INTJ 1s have different value systems to ENTP 7s and INTP 5s. The latter tend to be less interested in maximising productivity, resisting all possible challenges, or asserting their status. In this respect, at least our mutual irritation stops incompatible characters from wasting time with one another.

If you want a real-world example of how NTPs can be successful, then look up a historical figure that you believe to be an NTP. Are we done yet?


----------

