# Which one is Smarter, INTJ or INTP??



## azrinsani

Which one do you guys think is generally smarter? INTP or INTJ??


----------



## Immemorial

Neither, because I don't believe that type has a correlation with 'intelligence.'


----------



## azrinsani

Statistics have shown that
- Introvert are 60% more likely to have higher IQ than Extroverts
- 75% of High IQ types are NTs

So I presume it's either INTP or INTJ is the smartest.....


----------



## skycloud86

Firstly, define intelligence. Secondly, I agree with DH in that whilst types may be seen by others as more intelligent, intelligent people are found in all types.


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

Statistics have shown INTJ. Though, I think INTJ has a more balanced intelligence, like a combination of the logical abilities of the INTP and the creative and writing abilities of the INFP. Our powerful intuition is often more efficient than logic or feeling. But I fear becoming the jack of all trades and the master of none. Yes, the average INTJ is smarter than the average INTP, but they have Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci. Then again, Newton, I've always seen typed as INTJ. Actually, there are about 1.5 times as many INTP as INTJ, so that may have something to do with this imbalance.


----------



## Lucretius

Going by IQ, statistics favor INTJ.


----------



## azrinsani

skycloud86 said:


> Firstly, define intelligence. Secondly, I agree with DH in that whilst types may be seen by others as more intelligent, intelligent people are found in all types.


Define Intelligence.... hmmm

I see it as Ti vs Ni


----------



## Promethea

I think that they have equal capacity for intelligence, but maybe intjs have more focus in certain areas. Ne tends to make nps mind wander but it also allows connections to be made within a bigger picture. If I wanted an -expert- in a -certain- area, I would probably pick an intj. If I was looking for interesting new developments in a field, intp. I agree that is depends on how we are measuring intelligence as well. I read an article on iq once that basically narrowed it down to intj being most likely to have higher iq. It went by introversion vs extroversion, n vs s, t, vs f.. Then again, this is only -likely- and whos to say those statistics on each preference were even accurate? And that is just iq. I don't think it means much at all. I think that there is also a sort of stereotype that goes with intj being more intelligent, perhaps because they are more in-your-face about it, unlike the intp who usually doesn't express it so overtly.


----------



## L'Empereur

Voted INTP.


----------



## timeless

Promethea said:


> If I wanted an -expert- in a -certain- area, I would probably pick an intj. If I was looking for interesting new developments in a field, intp.


I'm inclined to agree with this. I think the J function helps in areas that are already well mapped out, while the P function helps in a more general sense.


----------



## geGamedev

Whichever one I decide is my type. :tongue:


----------



## Hardstyler

personality type may be a determining factor but I'm a ENFP I have a IQ of 125 and I scored 85 on a ASVAB where as one of my INTJ freiend is 122 and he scored 74 on the ASVAB


----------



## Heuristyx

Type does not indicate intelligence.


----------



## str1nger

(If someone could post them as proper pictures/a mod could edit my post that'd be great, I don't have the 10 posts I need to post them yet.)
fileupyours.com/files/251501/thedata.bmp
fileupyours.com/files/251501/thegraph.bmp


Found this on some forum, they used the data of the following study: psych.wisc.edu/henriques/papers/Sak.pdf

IQ wise INTJs > INTP tho. And in the end it's just IQ and doesn't matter too much, but saying that there's no correlation is still ridiculous. It's just about likelyhood, obviously every type can be very intelligent.


----------



## Scruffy

IQ tests tend to focus on abstract reasoning (with some memory thrown in and some language), but the abstract reasoning is the forefront. Problem is that most don't measure applicable knowledge or even integrate EQ.

Intuitives tend to test higher because the higher focus on abstract reasoning, also IQ tends to test for the though pattern of an N, or NT. 

The test is sort of made for them, personally I prefer the thought pattern of an INTP, the free-flowing sort is just nice.


----------



## FiNe SiTe

DarkestHour said:


> Neither, because I don't believe that type has a correlation with 'intelligence.'


I believe DarkestHour is right.

Unless of course you wanted personal opinion.....
Then I choose INTP.....Oh wait but INTJ's are the mastermind's.....
No, but INTPs have great leaps of thought........
Wait, I enjoy conversing with INTJs........But my sister and mum are INTPs......

Crap! I can't choose. 
I choose both!


----------



## TurquoiseSunset

I agree with DH. 

IQ measures are fluffy at best. They do no include a measure of creativity or account for the fact that some are brilliant in maths but lack linguistic skills, for example, or something similar.


----------



## RedFairy

I don't think there's any correlation between type and intelligence.


----------



## Ti Dominant

IQ is a questionable idea altogether.
But if we were speaking of intelligence strictly in terms of abstract reasoning alone, then I would say that both INTJ and INTP are highly intelligent in this regard, just in different ways, as has already been stated. An INTJ will be the expert on a subject; the INTP will be the person making theoretical advancements in a certain field.


----------



## MTSK

Nothing really relevant, 
but I think SJs are smart; SPs are witty; NTs are intelligent, NFs are wise ~
HAHA:tongue:


----------



## Socrates

20% of INTPs are said to be "gifted" in intelligence, whereas 37% of INTJs are.

Yet some of the most crazy minds, overall, have been INTP. Socrates (the other one), Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc.

I know my bias and voted accordingly: INTP is the smartest of the two. I can only speak from personal experience, in which I usually obliterate INTJs. Usually. Not always. INTJs, at the very least, are more talented and balanced.

Their talents are enviable, and they can get laid. :tongue:


----------



## azrinsani

Socrates said:


> 20% of INTPs are said to be "gifted" in intelligence, whereas 37% of INTJs are.
> 
> Yet some of the most crazy minds, overall, have been INTP. Socrates (the other one), Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc.
> 
> I know my bias and voted accordingly: INTP is the smartest of the two. I can only speak from personal experience, in which I usually obliterate INTJs. Usually. Not always. INTJs, at the very least, are more talented and balanced.
> 
> Their talents are enviable, and they can get laid. :tongue:


From my personal experience, INTPs are the "hackers" while INTJs are the "Researchers"


----------



## azrinsani

mtsk said:


> nothing really relevant,
> but i think sjs are smart; sps are witty; nts are intelligent, nfs are wise ~
> haha:tongue:


a = b = c = d


----------



## SyndiCat

Lame. My brother is an INTJ and he's dumber than wood. Whenever he needs something fixed, he comes to me for help, and I'm an IN*F*P.


----------



## Vaka

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> Statistics have shown INTJ. Though, I think INTJ has a more balanced intelligence, like a combination of the logical abilities of the INTP and the creative and writing abilities of the INFP. Our powerful intuition is often more efficient than logic or feeling. But I fear becoming the jack of all trades and the master of none. Yes, the average INTJ is smarter than the average INTP, but they have Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci. Then again, Newton, I've always seen typed as INTJ. Actually, there are about 1.5 times as many INTP as INTJ, so that may have something to do with this imbalance.


Leonardo Da Vinci was ENTP. Says I.


----------



## MTSK

azrinsani said:


> a = b = c = d


Really...? I "think" it this way :
a=charming
b=attractive
c=beautiful
d=adorable


----------



## nevermore

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> Statistics have shown INTJ. Though, I think INTJ has a more balanced intelligence, like a combination of the logical abilities of the INTP and the creative and writing abilities of the INFP. Our powerful intuition is often more efficient than logic or feeling. But I fear becoming the jack of all trades and the master of none. Yes, the average INTJ is smarter than the average INTP, but they have Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci. Then again, Newton, I've always seen typed as INTJ. Actually, there are about 1.5 times as many INTP as INTJ, so that may have something to do with this imbalance.


It's interesting you would say that, because it is actually the INTP that is often called the jack of all trades, whereas the INTJ is known as the expert. This is because Ti-Ne seeks to build a holistic web of everything, which makes specializing in a single field inexpedient. Of course, that has a lot more to do with how you choose to apply your functions. My grandfather is INTJ and a huge proponent of getting a "good general education", with which I wholeheartedly agree.

The comment on writing is interesting, because I have been told I am actually very good at evoking emotion and suspense when I do creative writing, which even I have to admit seems like an odd gift for an INTP to have but for some reason I ended up with it. INTJ's are unquestionably the best NT fiction writers on average however, probably because of the dominant intuition and the not-quite-as-bad feeling function, just like they are most intelligent on average because of the dominant intuition. That Ni is quite a powerful thing. And I'm not at all ashamed to admit it, because generalizations are irrelevant to the individual person. There is no such thing as a collective IQ because (to paraphrase a famous INTJ author) there is no such thing as a collective brain. I'm on the 99th percentile, and that result was _not_ from an internet test, so I feel quite secure. :happy:


----------



## nevermore

Socrates said:


> 20% of INTPs are said to be "gifted" in intelligence, whereas 37% of INTJs are.
> 
> Yet some of the most crazy minds, overall, have been INTP. Socrates (the other one), Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc.
> 
> I know my bias and voted accordingly: INTP is the smartest of the two. I can only speak from personal experience, in which I usually obliterate INTJs. Usually. Not always. INTJs, at the very least, are more talented and balanced.
> 
> Their talents are enviable, and they can get laid. :tongue:


Sorry, but I have one more reason for us to envy INTJ's: Darwin was actually one of them. I know, soooo jealous!:tongue: But what do you expect for a type known as "the Sceintist"? (Einstein and Socrates are unquestionable INTPs, however).



Lara Croft said:


> Leonardo Da Vinci was ENTP. Says I.


And this is also true. Mind you, the differences between the ENTP and INTP are subtler than those between the INTJ and INTP so it is harder to make a definite call on that one.



azrinsani said:


> From my personal experience, INTPs are the "hackers" while INTJs are the "Researchers"


Lol, it's true, but it's a stereotype. I'm _completely_ technologically inept. I'd actually wager more than completely. And I am_ such_ a researcher...


----------



## str1nger

Philosophically, NTPs are the rationalists whereas NTJs are the empiricists. Makes a lot of sense on many levels if you think about it.


----------



## str1nger

Source


----------



## nevermore

Thanks, Stranger! Wow, this sure is interesting. So we _are _really smarter on average?


----------



## nevermore

str1nger said:


> Philosophically, NTPs are the rationalists whereas NTJs are the empiricists. Makes a lot of sense on many levels if you think about it.


Yeah, it does. Ti is subjective and decides the truth on its own so it's no wonder we tend to think there really is a way to know "THE Truth". Te's pragmatism means what is logical is not absolute but what best fits external circumstances; they tend not to seek absolute truth and doubt we can ever know it. I think someone once said INTJ`s tend to see the world as a pawn of ideas...that makes a lot of sense too I`d say.


----------



## str1nger

I remember seeing a different study which suggests that INTJs have a higher IQ on average, but they seem to be slightly less likely to be "gifted". Doesn't matter too much really. The point is that there's a clear correlation between certain traits and performance on IQ tests. Since IQ tests measure a certain kind of intelligence, the one that in everyday language is usually being called "intelligence", I'm confused why so many people say that there's no correlation between type and intelligence without going into details. Obviously the smartest person in the world could be an ESFJ, ESFJs are just generally less likely to have a high IQ. But as we all know, they're much more likely to help someone else feel good about themselves than your average INTP or INTJ. You can call it social intelligence if you prefer that. 

In my opinion, this stuff is kind of what funcion theory is about and it confuses my why people seem to think that there's no correlation. I'd love to hear a different point of view in order to understand it.


----------



## str1nger

nevermore said:


> Yeah, it does. Ti is subjective and decides the truth on its own so it's no wonder we tend to think there really is a way to know "THE Truth". Te's pragmatism means what is logical is not absolute but what best fits external circumstances; they tend not to seek absolute truth and doubt we can ever know it. I think someone once said INTJ`s tend to see the world as a pawn of ideas...that makes a lot of sense too I`d say.


Very true. In addition, Ps are much less focused externally than Js which means that they wouldn't be as happy about using empirical data in general as Js. I've never read Darwin, but I immediately thought he couldn't be an INTP because we'd hate to sit around, watch and compare birds.


----------



## Persephone

For quite a while I've questioned whether my true niche lies in the practical or the theoretical. I decided, after much scrutiny, that I lie somewhere in between, thanks to the overactive Ni and equally zealous Te. The latter keeps me really grounded. So I agree with the INTP=theorist INTJ=mastermind proposition. They're simply different strengths.


----------



## SyndiCat

Taking from personal experience. INTJ's and INTP's are both theorists, because they're usually both uncertain as to believe in their own opinions. The INTP, however, seems much more broadened in his/her theories compared to the INTJ who seems much more objectifying in his/hers. I think just about any strategist would agree that both inputs would be of value, but in the heat of the moment a broadened perspective of things would be a much more appropriate solution to the problem. I don't know. It seems to me that the INTJ can be looked at as "more clever" because they use the "It doesn't matter how good your defense is, a good offense will always run it over," whereas the INTP is more nitpicking making sure 'everything' is done accordingly. So yeah, they both have their qualities, and together they can do wonders because they seem to be able to reassure one another on what is undoubtly the correct choice.


----------



## OrangeAppled

azrinsani said:


> Statistics have shown that
> - Introvert are 60% more likely to have higher IQ than Extroverts
> - 75% of High IQ types are NTs
> 
> So I presume it's either INTP or INTJ is the smartest.....


I believe some graphs were already posted, but most studies show that INXX types tend to score the highest on IQ tests, which means INFXs tend to score higher than ENTXs. Different studies seem to show the INXXs in different orders. Some show INTPs higher than INTJs, followed by INFPs who are higher than INFJs, and others show the NJs scoring higher. I've seen one study show ALL the NPs before the NJs, including the extroverted NPs. The factor which is consistently least correlated to IQ is Feeling, interestingly. The biggest correlation is N, and if you look at the questions on IQ tests, then you can see why.

However, those are statistics, which means an individual's type does not determine their IQ and especially not their intelligence. An individual ESFJ may score higher than an individual INTJ, regardless of type trends. Besides, IQ is only ONE way to measure intelligence, a way which is biased towards a certain kind of intelligence.


----------



## Blackened Marxist

INTPs are good at speculation and deep realms of philosophy.

INTJs are great scientists and mathematicians. 

They make a great team, INTPs can speculate and hypothesize while the INTJ will work on problems.
I have a friend who is an INTJ, hes my best friend. He is great at school and knows more in science and math, but not more in History, Political theory, philosophy etc. I remember his stubborn support for capitalism, until months of debate he realized what to not like about it.

My IQ is 156 by the way...Donald Rumsfeld's is likely lower, yet hes an INTJ. 
Its just some random statistic that needs more adhesive to gain legitimacy.


----------



## WildWinds

Neither.

ENTP's are smarter than both of them roud:


----------



## snail

Statistically, I've read that the average INTJ will tend to have a higher IQ than an INTP, but from my experience, INTPs are sometimes wiser in other ways that are harder to classify with tests. 

Really, though, it's a silly thing to worry about, because any individual INTP might be smarter than an individual INTJ.


Also, on a side note, I've noticed from my personal experiences that both types tend to have great taste in music, but even that can vary from person to person. INxJs have been the most influential in helping me find the music that is best suited for my personality. They tend to know about all kinds of obscure stuff that turns out to be completely awesome. 

For example, this was a group I had never heard of until an INTJ told me about it:





But, then, an INTP told me about Curve:






I absolutely love most INTJs and INTPs as long as I don't have to date them.  ...oh, and contrary to the politically correct beliefs about music, I definitely _do_ believe that taste is related to intelligence. 

http://www.labnol.org/internet/music-taste-linked-to-intelligence/7489/


----------



## nevermore

snail said:


> ...oh, and contrary to the politically correct beliefs about music, I definitely _do_ believe that taste is related to intelligence.


^^^
This...


----------



## sayalain

MikeAngell said:


> Taking from personal experience. INTJ's and INTP's are both theorists, because they're usually both uncertain as to believe in their own opinions. *The INTP, however, seems much more broadened in his/her theories compared to the INTJ who seems much more objectifying in his/hers*. I think just about any strategist would agree that both inputs would be of value, but in the heat of the moment a broadened perspective of things would be a much more appropriate solution to the problem. I don't know. It seems to me that *the INTJ can be looked at as "more clever" because they use the "It doesn't matter how good your defense is, a good offense will always run it ove*r," whereas *the INTP is more nitpicking making sure 'everything' is done accordingly*. So yeah, they both have their qualities, and together they can do wonders because they seem to be able to reassure one another on what is undoubtly the correct choice.


very true. i have one intj friends that give off vibes like this, and i personally think intj is more much clever than my intp sisters. though, it is just me.


----------



## Blackened Marxist

Neither, neither, neither, neither.


----------



## hood

I think they're both pretty smart.. a INTP can come up with a whole new way to look at a problem and a INTJ could push that new way even farther. They stick together like the red and yellow m&ms


----------



## str1nger

Blackened Marxist said:


> Neither, neither, neither, neither.


Explain, please. Do you think that all types have on average the same intelligence? Do you define intelligence as multiple intelligences, the sum of which is on average the same for all types? Or do you use a more traditional definition of intelligence?

The old Greeks had different words for knowledge. _Sophia_ can be translated as deep, philosophical knowledge, _epistome_ as factual knowledge and _phronesis_ as practical wisdom. Anyone see any parallels to types?


----------



## Blackened Marxist

I already said...


----------



## str1nger

Nah, you were just talking about the differences between INTPs and INTJs and that they are good at different things, with which I completely agree. But every type is better than other types at something, that's why I'm wondering what your definition of intelligence is. Do you see those types as the most intelligent types?


----------



## Blackened Marxist

Intelligence is relative in any field of profession. I don't like claiming if someone's intelligent or not.
I think its completely reliant on the individual.


----------



## Entr0py

INTJs are just inferior. 

I am an INTP myself, so this could seem a bit egoistic of me, but the smartest person I have ever met also ended up of being an INTP so I think its pretty much correct.

INTPs > INTJs - in intelligence


----------



## str1nger

even if you're really smart, a sample size of two persons is far away from being sufficient for anything really


----------



## Entr0py

str1nger said:


> even if you're really smart, a sample size of two persons is far away from being sufficient for anything really


Its not like I never talked to anyone else...

And also I went to primary and highschool (quiet elite one actually) so I think I have a pretty good insight.

Also those graphs you showed are proving my point. I also belive that those % would only go higher In the INTPs direction if we would look at a group of exeptionally gifted people.

Ofc, I could be wrong...


----------



## nevermore

Entr0py said:


> INTJs are just inferior.
> 
> I am an INTP myself, so this could seem a bit egoistic of me, but the smartest person I have ever met also ended up of being an INTP so I think its pretty much correct.
> 
> INTPs > INTJs - in intelligence


INTPs are just inferior.

I am an INTP myself, so this could seem a bit self-effacing of me, but the smartest person I have ever met ended up of (sic) being an INTJ so I think its pretty much wrong.

INTJs > INTPs - in intelligence

Couldn't resist! :tongue:


----------



## Erbse

snail said:


> ...oh, and contrary to the politically correct beliefs about music, I definitely _do_ believe that taste is related to intelligence.
> 
> Your Taste in Music Can Reveal How Smart (or Dumb) You Are


I think you should reevaluate that opinion. Loved the second comment made concerning the article:



> The depth of research and the quality of writing can tell how smart or stupid the author is.


Intelligence doesn't co-relate well with music type - what matters is how a person identifies himself with a certain music type rather than the music in itself. Well, I could never do Beethoven admittedly, nor am I a particularly fan of Pianos.

To make the point clearer however: Some people listen to rap because they identify with the wannabe self importance, self entitlement and of course the tough life kinda thing - on the flipside, people with linguistic preferences will acknowledge rap for it's word wit and rhymes (and possible deeper messages, dependent on lyrics).

Granted, neither of the two are likely to listen to the very same 'artist', a genre in itself however doesn't say a whole lot about intelligence.


----------



## str1nger

Yeah, I know quite a few smart-highly gifted people who love rap, including myself. But if I met someone for the first time and they told me that they only listen to rap, I'd probably try to end the conversation as fast as possible.

In my personal experience, techno fans are very smart on average though. The complex song structure is probably very appealing to NT-types. Correlates nicely with the bit on music in the best INTP profile. But I think that, just like classical music, it takes a while to get into it.


----------



## bobz

azrinsani said:


> Which one do you guys think is generally smarter? INTP or INTJ??


With all due respect, you are definitely not the smarter one, having asked such a stupid and potentially stereotyped question. It depends on what individual person you are, what you focus on, and to encourage such an attitude that mbti can answer that question is unwise at best.


----------



## Goosebump

Where's the neither option?
Intelligence embodies many forms. I think INTJ and INTP are both smart in their own way. None is more than the other because their intelligence are different. The INTJ and INTP I know are very knowledgeable and I've never thought that one of them is smarter than the other.


----------



## azrinsani

bobz said:


> With all due respect, you are definitely not the smarter one, having asked such a stupid and potentially stereotyped question. It depends on what individual person you are, what you focus on, and to encourage such an attitude that mbti can answer that question is unwise at best.


Hehe, With all due respect you're using you intuition in a negative way. I do that sometimes too. There is no hidden meaning in my question. Just a plain question asking the MBTI experts here. 

Sensors would probably take these kind of statements in a more literal sense, taking everything in context. Intuitives like us will try to derive hidden meanings in it. But I assure you, it's just a curious question


----------



## Space Cat

1. There is multi intelligence
2. We're like 1% of the population. Odds are the INTP is going to beat the INTJ's based on how many INTx's you come across.
3. INTJ's are capable of apparent 'free flowing' thought. We just have the tendency to get to the point as Ni is famous for.
5. If it's Ti vs Ni, it would most likely be Ti since Ti seeks knowledge.

I didn't vote, i found this poll subjective and i would be biased if i did for i would vote what i like. However, the conclusion here seems more likely INTP even if i disagree.


----------



## hazzle92

It depends, but in general of traditional intelligence - INTP. Half of INTJs' intelligence is pure arrogance, I find INTPs tend to have a pure essence of intelligence, they ooze it.


----------



## bobz

define intelligence.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

To think that type letters would be a determinant for the number glial cells found per neuron is relatively humorous. I doubt that the type letters make in difference in that, which is where true intelligence is measured. Simply making neural connections faster and more complex than the next guy, doesn't even mean that you're more intelligent. But let's get serious...

*The INTJs own INTPs in contingency planning, while the INTPs own INTJs and every other type in spatial reasoning.*


----------



## .Coffee

What is raw intelligence? Who decides? IQ tests are, at their most basic level, flawed. They can not measure creativity or imagination. Nor can they measure real life problem solving skills. They predominately measure logical and left-brained functions. And good old Albert E himself said that imagination is better than intelligence. If you really look at it objectively and realistically, it is a biased assumption to think that any one type of personality is more intelligent than another. So, for all I know an ISTJ may me more intelligent than I or an ENPF or an INTP or ENFJ...it depends on the circumstances and the type of intelligence required for the task at hand.


----------



## Thrifty Walrus

They're both intelligent in their own ways, just like every type....


----------



## justcritic

INTP's create ideas and concepts. INTJ's implement them. 

I choose INTP because true intellect requires thinking outside the box and having a perfect yet flexible system of thought. So that no matter what new idea might be introduced, it can be fused with past ideas to create something even better. In short, no limitations. Plus, most famous intellectuals who made breakthroughs were INTP such as Einstein. I would say INTJs are better at making use of what is set in an area and taking advantage of it.


----------



## Ormazd

Wait wait wait, woah, hold up here. INTPs and INTJs are actually taking this question *seriously?* After going through the thread I'm inclined to say both types are quite silly.

I've never understood this apparent rivalry I've seen between INTPs and INTJs (and people from other types that take a side) on this forum. *shrugs*


----------



## .Coffee

Ormazd said:


> Wait wait wait, woah, hold up here. INTPs and INTJs are actually taking this question *seriously?* After going through the thread I'm inclined to say both types are quite silly.
> 
> I've never understood this apparent rivalry I've seen between INTPs and INTJs (and people from other types that take a side) on this forum. *shrugs*


That is so FUNNY! And so obvious. Wish I had thought of it.


----------



## rereshaneera

I don't think the result is acurate, since there are more INTPs than INTJ. They may vote for their own type. But I think each has certain awesomeness in their own way.


----------



## Entr0py

rereshaneera said:


> I don't think the result is acurate, since there are more INTPs than INTJ. They may vote for their own type. But I think each has certain awesomeness in their own way.


I think I've seen statistics of this forum showing there is more INTJs than INTPs here...


----------



## rereshaneera

Entr0py said:


> I think I've seen statistics of this forum showing there is more INTJs than INTPs here...


Ah, really? Where can I see that statistic? I'm a newbie here.


----------



## Neobick

I conclude that both types are rather stupid after reading through this thread.


----------



## amon91

ENTJ, we all know that. And that's totally not biased.

(and before I get fired at, yes I am kidding)


----------



## Entr0py

rereshaneera said:


> Ah, really? Where can I see that statistic? I'm a newbie here.


I think moderators posted it a few times... I don't remember anymore. :/


----------



## timeless

Entr0py said:


> I think moderators posted it a few times... I don't remember anymore. :/


There used to be this whole page of forum statistics that gave percentages for MBTI type, Enneagram, etc, but I can't find the link anymore. I think it must have got moved to some place during the forum upgrade and now I can't find it. I can't rightly recall whether there are more INTJs or INTPs though.


----------



## rereshaneera

Entr0py said:


> I think moderators posted it a few times... I don't remember anymore. :/





timeless said:


> There used to be this whole page of forum statistics that gave percentages for MBTI type, Enneagram, etc, but I can't find the link anymore. I think it must have got moved to some place during the forum upgrade and now I can't find it. I can't rightly recall whether there are more INTJs or INTPs though.


I think I have ever read that thread too. But from what I remember, what was written there is not the statistics of INTJs and INTPs in PersonalityCafe but in world population (Entr0py said there are more INTJs here than INTPs so I thought "here" meant this forum).

But from what I see, I think INTPs have higher percentage of population, some websites say so.

And personally I think MBTI is not some sort of IQ test or whatnot so we can't really judge which personality is the smarter. Each is awesome and genius in their own field. Even different people in same MBTI type can have really different degree of IQ.


----------



## Entr0py

rereshaneera said:


> I think I have ever read that thread too. But from what I remember, what was written there is not the statistics of INTJs and INTPs in PersonalityCafe but in world population (Entr0py said there are more INTJs here than INTPs so I thought "here" meant this forum).
> 
> But from what I see, I think INTPs have higher percentage of population, some websites say so.
> 
> And personally I think MBTI is not some sort of IQ test or whatnot so we can't really judge which personality is the smarter. Each is awesome and genius in their own field. Even different people in same MBTI type can have really different degree of IQ.


MBTI statistics say that there should be more INTPs than INTJs in the world population. But the internet population is something much different, if you look at the ESFJs (probably 15% of worlds population) there is almost non of them here, they are rare as unicorns.

I think what I have read before were forum statistics of PerC that were showing the domination of INFJs and INFPs, INTJs on the 3rd spot followed by INTPs...


----------



## bionic

Great, another thread that supports bias and hasty generalizations upon MBTI types!!!


----------



## rereshaneera

Entr0py said:


> *MBTI statistics say that there should be more INTPs than INTJs in the world population. But the internet population is something much different*, if you look at the ESFJs (probably 15% of worlds population) there is almost non of them here, they are rare as unicorns.
> 
> I think what I have read before were forum statistics of PerC that were showing the domination of INFJs and INFPs, INTJs on the 3rd spot followed by INTPs...


I think I agree with you on that bolded point. Yes ESFJs are so Goddamn rare here.

I'm so curious about that statistics you said, then I raped this forum and searched for that page then also googled anything but still found nothing. Feel like a nut that I can't find that page. But then I go to the ESFJ community and a mod posted there that the largest members of this forum is INFPs... but that post as created like 1 year ago so I can't guarantee that it's still relevant.

Gah. Okay I'll end my OOTness here.


----------



## SPtheGhost

fundamentally flawed question is fundamentally flawed 

with that said ..intj's 

master race , duh


----------



## neuropedia

INFJs
duhhh


----------



## Empress Appleia Cattius XII

INTP. Completely impartial, of course...


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

They are both smart in their own ways.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> They are both smart in their own ways.


Clearly, with only one dominating the other in spatial reasoning.


----------



## somewhere else

Both types are certainly slightly different brands of "smart." I'll admit it--I favor other perceivers because I understand their "smart" better than I do INTJs. I don't think I'll ever truly put one above the other, though.


----------



## Sara Torailles

Nah, INFJ's are smarter than you all. By the time it took you to have your petty little squabble, we used our Fe to solve all of the international diplomatic matters, thus bringing world peace. A ceremony is being held in our honor. There will be cake and kittens.


----------



## nevermore

Torai said:


> Nah, INFJ's are smarter than you all. By the time it took you to have your petty little squabble, we used our Fe to solve all of the international diplomatic matter, thus bringing world peace. A ceremony is being held in our honor. There will be cake and kittens.


You haven't heard about the INTx stereotype about loving kittens and (after the release of Portal) cake? :tongue:


----------



## Sara Torailles

nevermore said:


> You haven't heard about the INTx stereotype about loving kittens and (after the release of Portal) cake? :tongue:


Then we must make it in the shape of a Weighted Companion Cube.


----------



## absent air

Where's the ESFJ button?


----------



## Paradox of Vigor

absent air said:


> Where's the ESFJ button?


Do NOT press that!


----------



## blu

Both my brother and my dad are INTJs. My dad is frustrated at his job because everybody there is so much stupider than he is, and my brother is so smart he's driven himself and the entire family insane by manipulating them constantly. (Despite this, I love INTJs. I think they're chronically misunderstood.)
So yes... INTJs are definitely smarter.


----------



## Entr0py

blu said:


> Both my brother and my dad are INTJs. My dad is frustrated at his job because everybody there is so much stupider than he is, and my brother is so smart he's driven himself and the entire family insane by manipulating them constantly. (Despite this, I love INTJs. I think they're chronically misunderstood.)
> So yes... INTJs are definitely smarter.


So, you don't know a single INTP but you know INTJs are definitely smarter?

Thats like saying: ''Never saw a snail, but those turtles are slow as hell, yep, turtles are definitely slower.''


----------



## dalsgaard

Entr0py said:


> So, you don't know a single INTP but you know INTJs are definitely smarter?
> 
> Thats like saying: ''Never saw a snail, but those turtles are slow as hell, yep, turtles are definitely slower.''


Silence! Be in awe of the superior INTJ intelligence! Bow down and despair! Muhahaha!


----------



## MissJordan

Entr0py said:


> So, you don't know a single INTP but you know INTJs are definitely smarter?
> 
> Thats like saying: ''Never saw a snail, but those turtles are slow as hell, yep, turtles are definitely slower.''


Or maybe it's saying "It's impossible to beat perfection"


----------



## dalsgaard

MisterJordan said:


> Or maybe it's saying "It's impossible to beat perfection"


*Douchebag-hi5*

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude


----------



## Emerson

Blackened Marxist said:


> INTPs are good at speculation and deep realms of philosophy.
> 
> INTJs are great scientists and mathematicians.
> 
> They make a great team, INTPs can speculate and hypothesize while the INTJ will work on problems.
> I have a friend who is an INTJ, hes my best friend. He is great at school and knows more in science and math, but not more in History, Political theory, philosophy etc. I remember his stubborn support for capitalism, until months of debate he realized what to not like about it.
> 
> My IQ is 156 by the way...Donald Rumsfeld's is likely lower, yet hes an INTJ.
> Its just some random statistic that needs more adhesive to gain legitimacy.




That's odd actually, I'm a philosophy major, with a book soon to be published (only 19 booyah!) compared to my INTP friends they're much better scientists than myself but with a fair amount of philosophical ability. I think however that subject strengths mean nothing with regards to MBTI. Except for the N/S divide the more abstract subjects being more for N's while more grounded subjects for the S's.

The best scientist I know is an ISTJ interestingly enough. 

The divide between INTP and INTJ philosophically I think is that the INTP doesn't really mind speculation and endless thought on the subjects but that's where the idea stops for them, (I know I'm generalizing, bite me.) whereas the INTJ is more about forumulating an idea, testing the idea against other ideas and weaknesses and then living by it...

On the note on IQ mine is 137, the highest two I know of are 153 ENTP and 179 ISTJ...


----------



## Epimer

azrinsani said:


> Which one do you guys think is generally smarter? INTP or INTJ??


Irrelevant. 

Unless you can prove a positive correlation between high IQ, or a similarly "acceptable" measure if intellectual capacity, and the propensity for a certain set of cognitive functions to dominate in the maturing brain.



(But otherwise the answer is obviously INTP!!!)

(No not really!)

(But it isn't INTJ either!!!)


----------



## SPtheGhost

what does "smarter" even mean


----------



## blu

Entr0py said:


> So, you don't know a single INTP but you know INTJs are definitely smarter?
> 
> Thats like saying: ''Never saw a snail, but those turtles are slow as hell, yep, turtles are definitely slower.''


I never said I didn't know any INTPs. *sulky face*


----------



## Entr0py

blu said:


> I never said I didn't know any INTPs. *sulky face*


You didn't show any signs of directly comparing INTJs and INTPs in your reasoning. You just mentioned some more or less relevant facts about INTJs you know and concluded that they are smarter.


----------



## sea cucumber

INFJ . . . . .Honestly.....NO I mean honestly INFJ !!


----------



## sea cucumber

SPtheGhost said:


> what does "smarter" even mean


Smarter than the average bear? Humm when put it into context maybe it's a tricky question. which one is smarter than the average bear an INTP or an INTJ??


----------



## Blackened Marxist

Well... it was an example. I wasn't stating a subject-divide in particular. Anyway my Math and Science skills are starting to surpass his.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Give me an E!
E!
Give me an N!
N!
Give me an F!
F!
Give me a P!
P!
What does that spell?
ENFP!!! 
*gets attacked by a horde of INTX's*


----------



## blu

Entr0py said:


> You didn't show any signs of directly comparing INTJs and INTPs in your reasoning. You just mentioned some more or less relevant facts about INTJs you know and concluded that they are smarter.


 I didn't know any way of describing INTP intelligence that compared well with INTJ intelligence- they're both generally over the average. In other words, I'm not saying INTP are stupid and INTJ are geniuses. I'm saying that INTP are smart and INTJ are geniuses. 
(I know that geniuses probably isn't the plural for genius... but don't expect me to know what is, I'm only an INFP!)


----------



## absent air

blu said:


> In other words, I'm not saying INTP are stupid and INTJ are geniuses. I'm saying that INTP are smart and INTJ are geniuses.












the gap between genius and `smart´ is equal to the gap of a retard and a gifted mind.

I´ll drop this here:

_Personal Bias: A bias is defined as a strong leaning in either a positive or negative direction.

Point of View is defined as an opinion, attitude, or judgment on the part of an individual. _


----------



## blu

OK. That's cool.
(My point still stands! XD)


----------



## Monkey King

I measure a person's intelligence in terms of the impact their intelligence has on the collective. Their ideas can become the wellspring of new ideas that can move man forward.

Intelligence that have no impact in society is intelligence well wasted.


----------



## SPtheGhost

Aila8 said:


> I measure a person's intelligence in terms of the impact their intelligence has on the collective. Their ideas can become the wellspring of new ideas that can move man forward.
> 
> Intelligence that have no impact in society is intelligence well wasted.


 well therein illustrates the problem with the question...we dont know how we are defining intelligence , which is paramount when trying to figure out which one is smarter


----------



## emii2014

I think ill go with INTJ


----------



## V3n0M93

I'll go with INTJ.
Both types have the same potential, but we (INTP) are more lazy, while INTJ are more structured.


----------



## bloo

skycloud86 said:


> Firstly, define intelligence. Secondly, I agree with DH in that whilst types may be seen by others as more intelligent, intelligent people are found in all types.


Dear idiots,

Smart: pattern recognition through deductive reasoning and the tooling of 3rd party resources that may be of any use.
Provided : resources = information = is only good as it’s practicality, has it an expiration date it is of no good. 

= Your pace of this measurement.


----------



## Snakecharmer

V3n0M93 said:


> I'll go with INTJ.
> Both types have the same potential, but we (INTP) are more lazy, while INTJ are more structured.


What does laziness have to do with intelligence, though? And, structure isn't always best...

<devil's advocate>


----------



## bloo

blu said:


> I didn't know any way of describing INTP intelligence that compared well with INTJ intelligence- they're both generally over the average. In other words, I'm not saying INTP are stupid and INTJ are geniuses. I'm saying that INTP are smart and INTJ are geniuses.
> (I know that geniuses probably isn't the plural for genius... but don't expect me to know what is, I'm only an INFP!)


Before speaking of what you do not know, please make effort to only discuss what you CAN know.

Given, you can be a genius in many relative, compared subjects (ie: art, science, theory, etc), you first have to state which subject is superior.

You can do this by : Measurement of highest threshold of required logic. (ie: some subjects have limited intellect requirements, and lack endless potential)


----------



## Donkey D Kong

Neither, I wouldn't consider either of them smart if they would base intelligence off of something like this. Just because one is more/less organized than the other, that doesn't make them smarter. I would imagine that everybody would understand this. :dry:

Also, work ethic (or laziness) has nothing to do with intelligence. You could send an organized mentally challenged person to work and they'll do the work before they play. That doesn't make them smarter than that lazy stoner that says smart things from time to time, that just means that they're more productive than the lazy stoner. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone.


----------



## blu

bloo said:


> Before speaking of what you do not know, please make effort to only discuss what you CAN know.
> 
> Given, you can be a genius in many relative, compared subjects (ie: art, science, theory, etc), you first have to state which subject is superior.
> 
> You can do this by : Measurement of highest threshold of required logic. (ie: some subjects have limited intellect requirements, and lack endless potential)


 I think that went over my head... all I know is I heard this *zoom* noise and now my hair is sticking up lol-- both INTPs _and_ INTJs are too smart for me.


----------



## V3n0M93

Snakecharmer said:


> What does laziness have to do with intelligence, though? And, structure isn't always best...
> 
> <devil's advocate>


 My thought was other. Lets say an INTP and an INTJ know how to make a time machine. The INTJ will go ahead and make it, while the INTP will say "I'll do it tomorrow". While both types are equally smart, INTJs realize their potential better than we do.


----------



## HarpFluffy

INTJs and INTPs _have_ to be smart, otherwise we couldn't do what we do.

Who is smarter? I'd say pretty much the same.


----------



## Loyalgirl

Who cares which type ppl think is smarter. Make the INTPs do a study to find out!


----------



## skycloud86

Loyalgirl said:


> Who cares which type ppl think is smarter. Make the INTPs do a study to find out!


Why the INTPs?


----------



## Wartime Consigliere

Imo, ENTJ/INTP would be a better comparison. (Likewise, INTJ/ENTP)


----------



## Emerson

Binge Thinker said:


> Imo, ENTJ/INTP would be a better comparison. (Likewise, INTJ/ENTP)



I'd agree, Ni vs Ne and Ti vs Te.


----------



## Eleventeenth

> Which one is smarter, INTJ or INTP??


Bwahahahahahahaahhaaaaaaaaaaaaahaahhahahahahaa. Ahaha. Hahaha. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Heh. Oh, that was good.


Oh. Right. Sorry. I was just thinking to myself there for a minute.


----------



## Fleetfoot

A question like this deserves one answer:










I won't begin to state how such a vague question will lead to flawed answers.


----------



## sameer6

DarkestHour said:


> Neither, because I don't believe that type has a correlation with 'intelligence.'


Absolutely right...


----------



## Misha

> Which one is Smarter, INTJ or INTP???


ESFP, for social intelligence.


This thread is _unreal_, btw.


----------



## Worriedfunction

This thread topic isnt very intelligent....


----------



## Near Lawliet

I think it depends on what one considers to be "smart." IQ tests are argued to barely even able to measure "intelligence." For the types though... I think it depends in the situation they are in that will decide if they are "smarter" than the other. INTJs will beat an INTP in some area whereas INTPs will beat an INTJ in some other area.


----------



## WolfStar

I'm an INTJ, so obviously that's who is more intelligent. _Obviously_.


----------



## intrasearching

I had written out a long response that explained why personality type cannot necessarily be correlated with intelligence. But, in the process of writing it I began to doubt myself, and now I am not sure what I believe.

It seems that in general INTJs and INTPs are rather intelligent. However, of course there are those of either type with average or below average intelligence. Part of me wants to say that personality type only measures how we absorb and process information, and that intelligence cannot necessarily be correlated with this. But then again, I can see how one's cognitive functions do indeed gear them toward deep intellectual thought, quick processing, (and their opposites) etc.

In my experience, while I have met all types of intelligent people, it strikes me that this is more a matter of where their intelligence exists. I have known ESFPs who were highly intelligent in terms of dealing with people, being a leader in their job, taking care of business and organizing task groups, whereas they were not able to sit down with me and engage me in a deep conversation about life, the universe and our relation to it.

So, while part of me believes that certainly intelligence can be correlated with personality type, and another part of me believes that it is unfair to make that prejudgment, I must say I can't be sure one way or the other.

My inclination is to believe that INTJs will be more intellectually capable (or quick) in regards to the sorts of intelligence measured by an IQ test. But, what intelligences does one value, and what is one doing with that? I can only for certain draw the conclusions that INTJs are more linear than INTPs and therefore will generally be more naturally inclined to flourish in those areas requiring linear thought and processing. INTPs seem to be more capable in terms of open-ended, Ne driven thinking, which in my mind lends itself to deep philosophical discussion, creativity, etc. It seems both INTJs and INTPs are rather smart people in general, and that they are both rather capable in terms of language acquisition and use, computational skills, etc. But in the aforementioned areas I do see a difference.

Who can say, really? It is the type of intelligence valued that needs to be considered, among other things.


----------



## Waiting

RaptorWizard said:


> INTJ also may have Nikola Tesla, the 2nd greatest genius ever only behind the 1st geatest genius ever, Da Vinci, an INTP. Newton, possibly an INTJ would be 3rd and Einstein, INTP for sure is 4th. 5th could be Charles Darwin, another INTP.


i dont really have anything to say except that I laughed when you listed Charles Darwin.


----------



## HandiAce

Screw INTJs and INTPs. ESFPs and ESTPs are the smartest because by the time you're done theorizing, they've already solved a real world problem!


----------



## Robopop

This thread ah maeka me go lol, INTJs are probably more likely than INTPs to put stock in commonly agreed upon external benchmarks for measuring intelligence like IQ tests(Te).


----------



## RaptorWizard

Waiting said:


> i dont really have anything to say except that I laughed when you listed Charles Darwin.


You are a funny kid waiting! btw The 3 greatest theories in science have been Cause and Effect (Newton), Evolution (Darwin), and Relativity (Einstein). Tesla harnesses the awsome power of electrical engineering bending the natural forces to his will, and Da Vinci was the Grand Architect of the Renaissance, the most diversely talented man ever.


----------



## Waiting

RaptorWizard said:


> You are a funny kid waiting! btw The 3 greatest theories in science have been Cause and Effect (Newton), Evolution (Darwin), and Relativity (Einstein). Tesla harnesses the awsome power of electrical engineering bending the natural forces to his will, and Da Vinci was the Grand Architect of the Renaissance, the most diversely talented man ever.


contrair, a funny thing you speak again. Darwin's theories are like swiss cheese, he does not belong in league with the others, not by a long shot.


----------



## Dark Romantic

INTPs, by virtue of being one letter away from awesome.


----------



## Robopop

Dark Romantic said:


> INTPs, by virtue of being one letter away from awesome.


So I guess that means INTPs, ENFPs, ESTPs, and ENTJs are on a level playing field in terms of awesomeness right?


----------



## Dark Romantic

You catch on quick. We'll make an ENTP of you yet!


----------



## RaptorWizard

I would be interested if somebody could make an argument that ENTP is not only smarter than INTP, but also smarter than INTJ! Not that I actually agree, but taking indefensible positions in arguments is such fun!


----------



## BronsenRhodes

This poll is a little ignorant in my opinion, but. calibrating intelligence is a very complex thing. for example, an NT displays the highest level of logistical intelligence. of the other four archtypes. an INTP's main intelligence is still logistical, but an INTP will have a greater tactical intelligence than an INTJ. all the while an INTJ will have a great strategical intelligence than an INTP. trying to desifer between which is of greater value "in general" is a bit ludicrous. which is more valuable to you is most likely going to depend on which you are, thus which you favor. I say both are equally important in playing their rolls to find balances between the strengths and weaknesses of both.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr

This is a silly thread. It reminds me of the witch saying, mirror mirror on the wall, who is the loveliest of us all.
She did have a cow when it turned out that Snow White was lovelier than she was.
Don't feed each other poisoned apples, INTJs and INTPs!!!


----------



## Dark Romantic

walking tourist said:


> Don't feed each other poisoned apples, INTJs and INTPs!!!


An apple a day keeps the doctor away (in this case, permanently). :wink:


----------



## JoetheBull

which INTP and which INTJ? I tend to lose to many others in this category. (or so I let them think)


----------



## Persephone

I'm "smarter". INTPs are more "intelligent". They're surprisingly irrational sometimes, especially when it comes to their inferior Fe. My INTP best friend said to me: You're not rational? My dear, you're so rational that you mistake yourself for an INFJ!


----------



## Minka

I think INTPs are smarter. I retook the test over and over again trying to be an INTP. I intuited they were smarter before I even knew what I was. I envied their cool *celebrity* list - it is more balanced. My good friend is an INTP and I love her so much! We soar to new heights when we are together! I will admit, however, I have had a hard time accepting her as a friend out of jealousy! She has a soft passive side I envy. I will also lose my looks sooner in life than her because she knows how to relax. LOL! That's probably why INTPs are smarter - they CAN relax and see the big picture if need be. Another friend of mine is a famous hacker type and I think he is an INTP. We met at Defcon a while back and I felt so full of creative healing energy afterwards. Which is funny, because I am so much more conservative and question his values, but his brain wins regardless =)


----------



## Le9acyMuse

Smarter in what?


----------



## Minka

I personally think everything, but that's my ego speaking.


----------



## Curiously

I cannot choose. Both are, at least the ones I know. They just think a bit differently. When I want to streamline my ideas and come to the best possible decision on a matter, I will tend to seek dialogue with an INTJ. If I want to wax poetic about the state of the world, human dynamics, and just discuss and theorize for the art of it, I will likely call upon my INTP friends or Dad.


----------



## MNiS

walking tourist said:


> Don't feed each other poisoned apples, INTJs and INTPs!!!


That's probably the smartest thing anyone's said in this thread.


----------



## Alice_Morgan

None of the above.


----------



## intrasearching

Robopop said:


> This thread ah maeka me go lol, INTJs are probably more likely than INTPs to put stock in commonly agreed upon external benchmarks for measuring intelligence like IQ tests(Te).


The fact that INTPs are winning in this poll points either to the fact (?) that there are more INTPs here, or that INTPs indeed put more stock into such measurements as IQ. All the INTPs I know IRL (8, surprisingly) hold intelligence as perhaps the most important of all human qualities. Then again, all these INTPs are my age, aside from three of them. It could very well be that our obsession with intelligence is due to our age. Though I suspect it will always be something I focus on to some degree.


----------



## Jason Chan

> Statistics have shown INTJ. Though, I think INTJ has a more balanced intelligence, like a combination of the logical abilities of the INTP and the creative and writing abilities of the INFP. Our powerful intuition is often more efficient than logic or feeling. But I fear becoming the jack of all trades and the master of none. Yes, the average INTJ is smarter than the average INTP, but they have Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci. Then again, Newton, I've always seen typed as INTJ. Actually, there are about 1.5 times as many INTP as INTJ, so that may have something to do with this imbalance.


Statistics sucks especially in the social "science", which is not science at all in the narrow sense
it all depends on how the survey was done and how you interprete the figures
What's more, mbti is not a science that can be verified
Many intjs are mistyped as intps and vice versa ....
You can make a list of all the complications involved in this kind of survey
I won't take statistics like this seriously unless I know how the figures were gathered and the methodology used


----------



## Jason Chan

Minka said:


> I think INTPs are smarter. I retook the test over and over again trying to be an INTP. I intuited they were smarter before I even knew what I was. I envied their cool *celebrity* list - it is more balanced. My good friend is an INTP and I love her so much! We soar to new heights when we are together! I will admit, however, I have had a hard time accepting her as a friend out of jealousy! She has a soft passive side I envy. I will also lose my looks sooner in life than her because she knows how to relax. LOL! That's probably why INTPs are smarter - they CAN relax and see the big picture if need be. Another friend of mine is a famous hacker type and I think he is an INTP. We met at Defcon a while back and I felt so full of creative healing energy afterwards. Which is funny, because I am so much more conservative and question his values, but his brain wins regardless =)


You won't be jealous of us if you get to know more of us
We are just too much in the clouds ... can't even notice what's happening right in front of us
The smartest person I know is an estj, the street wise sort of people who so many NTs look down upon


----------



## Loki Grim

Voted for INTJ before I started over thinking this..


----------



## Hruberen

I'm the only one of these two personalities that I know, so I'm going to be partial and vote INTP because I'm the smartest out of all INTPs and INTJs that I know


----------



## karpalo

I'm not going to vote. Individuals may be compared in some things, but not whole groups. You could as well poll whether Americans outwit Chinese people or vice versa.

And (I believe someone must have asked this already but) what kind of intelligence are we talking about anyway?


----------



## cyamitide

INTP > INTJ

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...measure-cognitive-function-3.html#post2123827


----------



## FillInTheBlank

I'm not even bothering to answer this poll. How smart a person is doesn't depend on what type they are. Also, the question is too broad. An INTJ could be smart in one area of intelligence and fall short on another. The same goes for INTPs as well and everybody else regardless of type. For example, an certain INTJ could lack emotional intelligence while another person-lets say that person is an ISFP wouldn't. How smart a person is is based on the capabilities that person has with all their areas of intelligence and how they use them.


----------



## Aislingeach

There isn't *one* intelligent mbti type. So neither.


----------



## DarkWarrior

INFJ
Nuff said.


----------



## Belrose

Neither, because it depends on how much they use it so it depends on the person.

And I've seen both types do miraculously stupid things.


----------



## LibertyPrime

This depends on the level of intelligence both individuals have. By my standards they can both be dumber then me . NT doesn't make one intelligent. This thread is ridiculous.


----------



## Dashing

Intjs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ista

Concepts of intelligence are changing. Innovation is required at a faster rate. The faster we innovate, the more problems we create and the faster we must innovate again to prevent the fall of civilization (yes, it sounds dramatic - it's not though). This requires a higher degree of thinking outside the box and the ability to implement faster and faster. 

I would argue that, for practical intelligence to be exercised effectively - both types would produce innovative solutions working together. I would say both have deficits when considering what is required in the new, new, newest worlds.

When working with INTJ's I find they know things really well (are capable of rote learning). They can, however get stuck in the box and the details and sometimes benefit from a reframing what the end goals are from the INTP. They're not as comfortable with change, but they are good at carrying things out to completion. Often the point for an INTJ is set at a much more process-oriented position than the point for an INTP - which is often at a higher level of connectivity.

Eg. The point for an INTJ might be to fix the car. The INTP is already understanding the hovercars potential for being implemented in the next year and sees no point in expending the time, energy and money on fixing the car. When the INTJ looks up they might say "Well I fixed the car, but there wasn't much point, heh." 

I vote for a tandem effort for maximum ROIII (Return On Investment, Intelligence _and_ Implementation)


----------



## Jay Singh

lol is this really a controversy. J - Hasty decision, even for learning opportunities. P - Absorbs information till the last minute, compliments N, least to feel.


----------



## Curiously

Why didn't you have "Both" as your third option?

I know really intelligent INTJs and INTPs, so comparing their intelligence is akin to comparing apples to oranges. As such, I cannot vote in this poll.


----------



## Zyforb

INTJ. I'm an INTP, and I'm a moron.


----------



## Jason Chan

haha ... indeed 99 out of 100 intps that i have come across on the internet are morons who think they are the smarter than God ...
I dont know how we should describe these people in english

In chinese, we call them "frog in a well", meaning people who have no friends at all, completely cut off from the outside world and so they think they are the best in the whole universe simply because they have never met anyone smarter
Intps are poor morons

ps: you are not alone! i am another stupid intp who has just discovered what the world looks like outside my well ..


----------



## justcritic

*Generally speaking...*

I think INTJs would get way better grades in high school, where as INTPs would do better in the college environment. The J allows for action and in high school, there is little need for "thinking outside the box". Many INTPs are plain lazy, even among other personality types. Plus, many of us have problems with repetition, which is exactly what high school is. In college however, I think INTPs can take a turn for the better and do some remarkable things. INTJs would still do well. The academic system for the most part, requires hard work (action). In terms of IQ and intelligence (talents), depends on the person.


----------



## Tatl33

I voted INTJ


----------



## Miss Scarlet

These kinds of threads seem to be popping up like the bubonic plague.... what the hell!


----------



## Tophthetomboy

From what I've noticed, the people I know who are INTP tend to know many things about a variety of subjects, but they aren't completely masters. INTJ are more masters at what they study. So I guess INTJ is smarter, but INTP knows more.


----------



## Malcolm Osih

*list*



Socrates said:


> 20% of INTPs are said to be "gifted" in intelligence, whereas 37% of INTJs are.
> 
> Yet some of the most crazy minds, overall, have been INTP. Socrates (the other one), Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc.
> 
> I know my bias and voted accordingly: INTP is the smartest of the two. I can only speak from personal experience, in which I usually obliterate INTJs. Usually. Not always. INTJs, at the very least, are more talented and balanced.
> 
> Their talents are enviable, and they can get laid. :tongue:




More intellectually gifted people are found in INTJ and I wanted to make you a little more jealous by providing a list of known INTJs , however, darwin is an INTP. here's the list:

-Bill gates.
-Niels Bohr
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
-Ulysses S. Grant
-Stephen Hawking
-John Maynard Keynes
-Lise Meitner
-Isaac Newton
-Friedrich Nietzsche
-Peter the Great.


fictional INTJs include;

dr house
stewie griffin
mr.burns
Hannibal Lecter
Sheldon cooper (  )
cho from the mentalist


----------



## Malcolm Osih

..........


----------



## Wormwood

Sure glad that this was revived.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro

INTP.

INTJ puts the intelligence to better use, though. I would call that "smarter" in all honesty 

I don't understand where these stats are coming from.

I don't disbelieve them but an INTP typically has more balance between the left and right brain which you would think would mean they score higher on IQ tests. Lots of visual thinkers score higher on IQ tests and that requires a kick start from the good ole' right brain.

INTJs are said to be more left-dominant. I'm left dominant like a typical INTJ but I'm an INTP(and not gifted).


----------



## Vaka

Malcolm Osih said:


> More intellectually gifted people are found in INTJ and I wanted to make you a little more jealous by providing a list of known INTJs , however, darwin is an INTP. here's the list:
> 
> -Bill gates.
> -Niels Bohr
> -Dwight D. Eisenhower
> -Ulysses S. Grant
> -Stephen Hawking
> -John Maynard Keynes
> -Lise Meitner
> -Isaac Newton
> -Friedrich Nietzsche
> -Peter the Great.
> 
> 
> fictional INTJs include;
> 
> dr house
> stewie griffin
> mr.burns
> Hannibal Lecter
> Sheldon cooper (  )
> cho from the mentalist


How do people not see Dr House's obvious use of Ne?


----------



## hydrogen

Stupid question.


----------



## INTJellectual

I voted INTP. My brother who is an INTP is more intelligent then me. Although, I have won more awards with regards to Quiz Bee than him.
And the one in a million geniuses come from this type like Einstein.


----------



## blackacidlizzard

I moved from slightly J to majorly P through a restructuring of my philosophical understandings, so naturally I believe that "P" thinking is more accurate (because I wouldn't choose the path I thought was inferior, after all). Don't know how relevant this is, as greater cognitive ability does not enatial greater accuracy in conclusions, but I maintain it is more "intelligent" to aim for that which is compatible with reality.


----------



## cades

I'm pretty much the same although I'm not really majorly P I still have some J.
I just voted INTP cause I'm INTP lol~ But I was INTJ (or at least I thought).


----------



## cloudcompeller

Intellligence is indepedent of personality types because the categorisation of personalities only implies tendencies. But if I really have to choose one, I would say INTP can be more intelligent because the Perceiving element makes them more flexible, only relatively saying.


----------



## BroNerd

I'm sure someone said this a long time ago on this thread...but I would say ENTP is smarter than both 
But going for INTP since that type is closer to ENTP.


----------



## Ikari_T

azrinsani said:


> Statistics have shown that
> - Introvert are 60% more likely to have higher IQ than Extroverts
> - 75% of High IQ types are NTs
> 
> So I presume it's either INTP or INTJ is the smartest.....


You do know ENTJs have the highest income out of all the other types right? (Most intelligent money manipulators?)


----------



## Kabosu

Isn't this thread a bit guilty of "typism"?


----------



## Marac

azrinsani said:


> Statistics have shown that
> - Introvert are 60% more likely to have higher IQ than Extroverts
> - 75% of High IQ types are NTs
> 
> So I presume it's either INTP or INTJ is the smartest.....


But IQ doesn't measure all the other forms of intelligence such as:
- EQ
- Musical intelligence
- Creativity
- ect

So, it is very debatable.


----------



## skbulletin

Ikari_T said:


> You do know ENTJs have the highest income out of all the other types right? (Most intelligent money manipulators?)


Money has nothing to do with intelligence. Money are there for you to grab. If you don't make the effort to grab money *cough*introverts*cough* from their mommy trees, then well that's too sad. 

All the money will might as well get grabbed by some people who rather make the effort to get it *cough*extroverts*cough* After all, they are ENTJ. Common sense right? I'm not saying there aren't any other types out there who can be rich, but you get the point.

I'm from the business field too, I know how it works. ;]

Back to the thread.

Intelligence wise, assuming we are talking about how much are you willing to think OUTSIDE of the box, 
It will be xNTx NO DOUBT.

Being the INTP me, I didn't vote. I love my INTJ friends, and I sort of do look up for them in a way. 
Its a small world in a Big world. lol oxymoron 

Also, seeing people going nuts over such a simple question makes me smile. 
I can see all them hurt egos out there lol, 
not that I'm assuming everyone is butt hurt over who is better than who xD;


----------



## Impact Calculus

skbulletin said:


> Money has nothing to do with intelligence. Money are there for you to grab. If you don't make the effort to grab money *cough*introverts*cough* from their mommy trees, then well that's too sad.
> 
> All the money will might as well get grabbed by some people who rather make the effort to get it *cough*extroverts*cough* After all, they are ENTJ. Common sense right? I'm not saying there aren't any other types out there who can be rich, but you get the point.
> 
> I'm from the business field too, I know how it works. ;]
> 
> Back to the thread.
> 
> Intelligence wise, assuming we are talking about how much are you willing to think OUTSIDE of the box,
> It will be xNTx NO DOUBT.
> 
> Being the INTP me, I didn't vote. I love my INTJ friends, and I sort of do look up for them in a way.
> Its a small world in a Big world. lol oxymoron
> 
> Also, seeing people going nuts over such a simple question makes me smile.
> I can see all them hurt egos out there lol,
> not that I'm assuming everyone is butt hurt over who is better than who xD;


Thinking outside the box is pretty subjective. Your box is outside of my box. :wink:

@_BroNerd_

Anyway, MBTI type doesn't necessarily cater to intelligence, creativity, or how much you like puppies. There are a lot of tendencies between the cognition in your brain and the fundamental aspects of your personality, but they don't always work together. Also, IQ is by no means a standard for measuring intelligence and tend to rely on cognitive speed, efficiency, and how large your vocabulary is. There is much more to it than that - which is why the idea of developing a system that accurately measures intelligence seems futile.


----------



## this is my username

Lol because there are no individual differences in the world....


----------



## skbulletin

Impact Calculus said:


> Thinking outside the box is pretty subjective. Your box is outside of my box. :wink:


lol someone here took it literally :wink:
proving that xNTx are the more intellect ;] 
Lol jk don't take that comment to heart haha


----------



## Ikari_T

Impact Calculus said:


> There is much more to it than that - which is why the idea of developing a system that accurately measures intelligence seems futile.


That's very true. How do you accurately measure intelligence when the people who are developing the system has limited intelligence? I rather use Leonardo Davinci's DNA to clone him and raise him to be an intelligence developer than some random uncredited scientists.
But there's also that argument where time and hard work can slowly catch up to the lack of intelligence, assuming that the developers have decent intelligence to begin with. So it shouldn't be a problem. 

It still tough to make intelligence a linear measurement because it's not linear. There's so many types of intelligence: crystallized intelligence, liquid intelligence, emotional intelligence, spatial intelligence, etc. I think it's a better idea to separate these intelligence tests into specific categories I mentioned as examples.


----------



## SweetPickles

INTJ make decisions faster and they are usually dead on. INTP's are easier to fool. 

Don't get me wrong, both are super smart.


----------



## Impact Calculus

Ikari_T said:


> That's very true. How do you accurately measure intelligence when the people who are developing the system has limited intelligence? I rather use Leonardo Davinci's DNA to clone him and raise him to be an intelligence developer than some random uncredited scientists.
> But there's also that argument where time and hard work can slowly catch up to the lack of intelligence, assuming that the developers have decent intelligence to begin with. So it shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> It still tough to make intelligence a linear measurement because it's not linear. There's so many types of intelligence: crystallized intelligence, liquid intelligence, emotional intelligence, spatial intelligence, etc. I think it's a better idea to separate these intelligence tests into specific categories I mentioned as examples.


Your IQ can actually increase through long term development of your processes. Though IQ doesn't and couldn't cover every aspect, this tells me that our individual aptitudes for intelligence aren't innate.


----------



## SnowFairy

I voted INTP, but I'm biased because of my dad.


----------



## saturnne

I think the INTJ would _seem_​ smarter.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls

I think they're both of equal intelligence, I just think one works harder than the other, which I would say to be INTJ. This isn't always the case though, obviously.


----------



## Griffith

when it comes to abstract thinking, I think INTP has an advantage.Ti+Ne+Si these 3 cognitive functions combined make the best abstract thinkers IMO

the other NTs I guess INTJ, ENTP and ENTJ are pretty much on the same level


----------



## Weeds32

This is a trick question, right? Everyone knows the INFJ is the most intelligent. You get the best of both the INTJ (Ni) and INTP (Ti) working together in the INFJ. I know its scary, but it will be alright, we come in peace. Haha.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka

IQ doesn't reflect intelligence. It reflects logical pattern recognition and memory.

NTs have higher IQs because _they focus on logical pattern recognition_. The entire concept is skewed in our favor.

To date, there is no way to actually measure intelligence. The question is meaningless.


----------



## Dark Romantic

INTJs are better specialists and planners, INTPs are better analysts and general thinkers.


----------



## fiertelann

I don't really get how this is based on type? 

The most intelligent person I know (seriously, way above everyone else) is a textbook INTP. I'll throw modesty out the window and admit that I think I'm the second smartest person I know. I'm an ENFP. The INTJs and ISTJs I know get excellent grades but can't apply their knowledge very well outside school.


----------



## Jay Singh

You guys do realize, if the INTP isn't the smartest, then it is literally the most useless profile. INTJs focus on practicality of their intelligence, while INTPs are open to every detail, and understanding. To make the INTJ more intelligent and still have the means to be practical, they would be worshiped, but guess what? they aren't, the very existence of this thread supports the claim... The unbalance would be tremendous, and the INTP would have no specialty, while the INTJ has two? 

Oh and please stop with the "how do you define intelligence?" Herp derp . Intelligence has always been defined as logic, spotting inconsistencies, and understanding vague concepts. There is no "practical" intelligence, Musical Intelligence, and the other intelligence crap Howard Gardner defined. They may exist but they are in no sense forms of intelligence, they are just categories of cognitive abilities, and the actual intelligence with a different name he made up, stop blindly following semi-pseudo psychology, scientists are always drawing up good enough crap to pass peer-reviews to gain recognition, or keep an income, even when they themselves don't believe it; not everyone does it for the name of science.

I can probably differentiate 10 different categories on the way of thought, and different forms of intelligence. Even these cognitive functions are missing things, like sensory memory, not many are conscious of it, but I bet some people know what I'm talking about, when you're absorbing environmental stimuli and are conscious to the filtering of unneeded information, which isn't in the language of words or thinking, images or sensing, emotions or feeling, instinct or intuition, but something else, let's call it extroverted collectivism, and when you have more than two or three thoughts working at the same time let's call it introverted collectivism, or maybe dissonance. I could probably go on defining it, but this is just to make a point. This is our nature we label things and assign them in categories, but none are absolute, they are always changing, it's stupid. Let intelligence be intelligence like it always has been. Intelligence is the essence of depression; you make yourself out to be intelligent but don't suffer the consequences. i don't care if you think you're superman but stop manipulating societal validation just to feel a little more special about yourself, because the people who have barely any chances to have that are being cheated.


----------



## Impact Calculus

Jay Singh said:


> You guys do realize, if the INTP isn't the smartest, then it is literally the most useless profile. INTJs focus on practicality of their intelligence, while INTPs are open to every detail, and understanding. To make the INTJ more intelligent and still have the means to be practical, they would be worshiped, but guess what? they aren't, the very existence of this thread supports the claim... The unbalance would be tremendous, and the INTP would have no specialty, while the INTJ has two?
> 
> Oh and please stop with the "how do you define intelligence?" Herp derp . Intelligence has always been defined as logic, spotting inconsistencies, and understanding vague concepts. There is no "practical" intelligence, Musical Intelligence, and the other intelligence crap Howard Gardner defined. They may exist but they are in no sense forms of intelligence, they are just categories of cognitive abilities, and the actual intelligence with a different name he made up, stop blindly following semi-pseudo psychology, scientists are always drawing up good enough crap to pass peer-reviews to gain recognition, or keep an income, even when they themselves don't believe it; not everyone does it for the name of science.
> 
> I can probably differentiate 10 different categories on the way of thought, and different forms of intelligence. Even these cognitive functions are missing things, like sensory memory, not many are conscious of it, but I bet some people know what I'm talking about, when you're absorbing environmental stimuli and are conscious to the filtering of unneeded information, which isn't in the language of words or thinking, images or sensing, emotions or feeling, instinct or intuition, but something else, let's call it extroverted collectivism, and when you have more than two or three thoughts working at the same time let's call it introverted collectivism, or maybe dissonance. I could probably go on defining it, but this is just to make a point. This is our nature we label things and assign them in categories, but none are absolute, they are always changing, it's stupid. Let intelligence be intelligence like it always has been. Intelligence is the essence of depression; you make yourself out to be intelligent but don't suffer the consequences. i don't care if you think you're superman but stop manipulating societal validation just to feel a little more special about yourself, because the people who have barely any chances to have that are being cheated.


Most people make the mistake of using the definition that is most commonly used, which makes use of the word even more common. If only everybody was educated, then the conventional interpretation would be enough to suffice. It's a shame that most psychologists wouldn't define intelligence as "logic" and "understanding of the vague". Human beings don't have robotic thinking patterns and it's not like we can empirically mark the territory of where intelligence lies. 

"Sensory memory" is also completely outside the realm of our cognition.


----------



## jeffbobs

I am going to do what everyone else did. 

There is no type that is more intelligent than another. but i shall still give my opinion on who it is 

It is an impossible test to do. No matter what sort of intelligence you compare, every single type has its "special" abilities that a type can be seen as naturally being good at (from a majority stand point) but comparing for example an introvert and extrovert and saying the extrovert can do things(more extrovert like)....well yes so? 

it kinda reminds me of the einstien quote :“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

You cannot judge 2 different personalities on certain things and expect fair results

All my friends have different quailties that i admire and wish to hell i had. That makes them better than me in that situation....more intelligent in that manner. But then again just like everyone in a group everyone serves a purpose, people are better at things than others. It doesn't make them better over all. it just makes them better at that 1 thing.

And this is the reason i think INTP's are the best


----------



## Jay Singh

Oh and whomever the victor, you should not heighten your self-esteem, just because your type is smarter, doesn't actually make you smarter, you're most likely a dunce like everyone else in here, except the one's who read this and laughed while thinking Ha, I'm a god compared to you, I accept you as my equal if not lower  jk... maybe


----------



## runnerveran

Just based off my own observations (I know, super scientific! :tongue: So take it with a grain of salt.) :

Those who type as INTP's tend to have superior fluid intelligence and those who type as INTJ's tend to have superior crystallized intelligence.

_"Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to think logically and solve problems in novel situations, *independent of acquired knowledge*. It is the ability to analyze novel problems, identify patterns and relationships that underpin these problems and the extrapolation of these using logic. It is necessary for all logical problem solving, especially scientific, mathematical and technical problem solving. Fluid reasoning includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning."

From my experience, INTP's are also hyper-aware of cognitive biases during their reasoning process, which is essential to good abductive reasoning.


_


Tenebrae said:


> IQ doesn't reflect intelligence. *It reflects logical pattern recognition and memory*.
> 
> NTs have higher IQs because _they focus on logical pattern recognition_. The entire concept is skewed in our favor.
> 
> To date, there is no way to actually measure intelligence. The question is meaningless.


Professional General IQ tests such as the Weschler and Stanford-Binet _also_ (purportedly_) _measures one's general knowledge and vocabulary. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_knowledge

You could make the argument that they score better on the portion of the test that measures _fluid intelligence, _because of their inborn propensity to focus on logical patterns. However, this cognitive preference alone does not (seem to me) to explain statistically significant differences between types in crystallized intelligence.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka

runnerveran said:


> Professional General IQ tests such as the Weschler and Stanford-Binet _also_ (purportedly_) _measures one's general knowledge and vocabulary.
> 
> General knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You could make the argument that they score better on the portion of the test that measures _fluid intelligence, _because of their inborn propensity to focus on logical patterns. However, this cognitive preference alone does not (seem to me) to explain statistically significant differences between types in crystallized intelligence.


What is "crystallized intelligence" if not a question of experience and memory? It doesn't seem to be a true reflection of _intelligence _at all.

That INTJs apparently score higher in that area probably reflects their preference for Ni over Ne. Ni (as Si) is about memory and repetition, so it's natural for a Ni-dominant to fare better in that area.

Furthermore, if such knowledge is generally considered a component of 'intelligence' despite having no logical relation, it stands to reason that those types which most highly prize intellectual accomplishment should more develop those skills. It's no secret that IQ increases with practice--not only at IQ tests, but in intellectual pursuits in general.


----------



## Anonynony

Going by stereotypes, I picked INTJ


----------



## saffron

The one who doesn't care about a "type poll" to determine their intelligence.


----------



## Scruffy

A process is simply a way to achieve a conclusion. I don't see why it's necessary to dickswing over paths one can take, it's all bullshit.


----------



## castigat

skycloud86 said:


> Firstly, define intelligence. Secondly, I agree with DH in that whilst types may be seen by others as more intelligent, intelligent people are found in all types.


This, and are we talking intellect, wisdom, wit, productiveness/practicality, or...?


----------



## DeductiveReasoner

Entp


----------



## kvothe0153

I think i'll just go along with the "Define Intelligence?" thing which seems to be cropping up often in this thread. 
Of course one could arguably say INTJs are the most apparently intelligent of the two because they are, simply put, more hardworking than INTPs. BUT, if one goes to lengths as to analyse the thinking patterns of their INTP counterparts, he/she would realise that INTJs only are only so much better at the "executing" part, while INTPs are only better at the "thinking" part(but they're basically just too lazy to voice it out, much less work it out).

Since practice makes perfect, and perfection breeds awesomeness, i would say INTJs are the awesome ones(thats the point of the thread right?-who's more awesome?-)....
But then...INTPs seem to somehow manage to catch up to INTJs even while being this lazy, so i would tend to believe that INTPs have superior intelligence in that sense.

Even if particular intelligence were to be measured in one's ability to shine in a particular field, INTPs abilities' to shine in every field grants them some sort of global inteligence advantage, which really(now i am sure), makes them the more/most intelligent of those/the MBTI types.


----------



## HelloOutThere

Your assumption doesn't require any less explaining than the assumption that there is a correlation beetween type and inteligence.


----------



## HelloOutThere

It's becoming sort of a cliche here on personality cafe, to state that neither does IQ matter nor is there any correlation beetween type and IQ.


----------



## Typologist

Every type has it's own specific ''kind'' of intelligence. All are necessary to the proper functioning of society. That's the boring answer.


----------



## JoanCrawford

azrinsani said:


> Statistics have shown that
> - Introvert are 60% more likely to have higher IQ than Extroverts
> - 75% of High IQ types are NTs
> 
> So I presume it's either INTP or INTJ is the smartest.....


IQ doesn't correlate into smartness if you ask me.


----------



## Goooseeey

An INTP will break down the functions and conclude which will lend itself towards a more "intelligent" being.

An INTJ will refer to INTJs or INTPs that they've met or they know throughout history, and decide which is the more intelligent group.

INTPs tend to break the system down in order to discover the truth while the INTJ is likely to refer to empirical data or measurements.

Theorists vs. Empiricists.

Frankly, I prefer theory because data can be misinterpreted, disputed, or measured incorrectly, but it all depends on your individual preferences. Of course, I do possess a particular bias in this area.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Neither. Type isn't about how smart one is.


----------



## kelcey.l.williams

exactly! it determines your favored aptitudes not so it would be either depending on the subject and depending on the individual of each comparison. thats like comparing apples and oranges guy


----------



## DemonAbyss10

I nominate ISTP XD


----------



## Gantz

I don't have much to go on, but I have one INTJ who I consider myself to be smarter than (although he'd say the same about me.) I also have an INTP friend who's probably smarter than I am, so INTP.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster

INTP master race reporting in.


----------



## Dauntless

Wait, I thought typism wasn't allowed?


----------



## Alumina

Depends.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

This topic cracks me up, because I swear you will find TONS of these types who are completely average intellectually, and who do not represent any particularly scholarly persona that's defined enough to really comment on about the person (in fact, that kind of persona would represent Jung's definition of persona pretty damn well - acting scholarly and all that is pretty extraordinarily persona conscious - it's not to say such people lack self-awareness at all necessarily, but it's definitely a strong mask to hide behind to protect the self from threats to the ego). If someone's really smart, it's not because they're an INTJ or INTP (I mean, you might get a lot of things with these types - you might get Hollywood actors/actresses who can be sufficiently labeled these types, but really have nothing to do with the persona image the internet creates around them - it's truly hilarious at times how often Pinky and the Brain is associated with INTJ (yeah right) and Star Trek is associated with INTP (yea right)). I mean, there might be a correlation between super smart people taking on such preferences, but it's not necessary. I don't usually see how type has anything to do with being an intellectual giant or not. There have probably been all kinds of intellectuals throughout history of all kinds of types (I mean, Jung was most likely ISTP, Freud was most likely INFP, Darwin might've been ESTJ, Tesla might've been INTJ, Ayn Rand's a strong candidate for INTJ as well, Herman Hesse is a strong candidate for INFJ, etc.). It's fairly irrelevant. And intelligence is a pretty broad topic as well.


----------



## bearotter

What a long thread. I actually think that, as long as we accept there's ultimately not going to be too much of a consensus, there's some interest in thinking about this. Comments on these lines:



timeless said:


> I'm inclined to agree with this. I think the J function helps in areas that are already well mapped out, while the P function helps in a more general sense.







Promethea said:


> I think that they have equal capacity for intelligence, but maybe intjs have more focus in certain areas. Ne tends to make nps mind wander but it also allows connections to be made within a bigger picture. If I wanted an -expert- in a -certain- area, I would probably pick an intj. If I was looking for interesting new developments in a field, intp.




I tend to be terrible at random idea generation, and I'd perhaps defer to an ENTP for the task of new developments, one with good consciousness of his/her Ti, so the perceiving function is not unfiltered. 

What was interesting for me is that when faced with a) a relatively unstructured environment, b) a lengthy amount of time studying a system of ideas, I tend to develop a very complete map of how they all work. 

The main thing though is Ti wants to determine principles that hold invariant of situation. It will create, break, reconstruct, etc various systems of understanding until it reaches one that is subjectively the most explanatory, and of course governed by logic. 
When Ne sees a situation, it can contort it to see its potential states until it looks abstractly like something from the Si-experience. Constantly, Ti is checking what is at work. 

The main difference is where their energy lies, so to speak. Ni perceives intuitive visions which shift to accommodate Te in an INTJ, which leads to the objective strategist standpoint. Whereas to Ti, two objectively different tasks which involve the same system of understanding as subjectively seen by them are no different. The Ne, again, will turn over the situation in the then and there to see all of its potential states and examine for whether the same Ti system applies. Some Si mediates this -- Si and Ne work hand in hand because in order to extrapolate a system's potential states, one requires Si to see sensory data in a dynamic fashion, that is, the same precise scenario with the same sensory parameters morphs, because Si does not see the data that existed, but rather how it registers to the user's ever-changing consciousness.



I found INTJs generally more talented at dealing with the rigidity of objective systems, given the fluidity of Ni's internal system-building in a true INTJ is naturally there to accommodate the nuances of the various objective discrepancies that may arise. It's not just seeing how the ideas relate to each other, but how they are working in the objective system. There may not be very many _new_ ideas, but it perceives internally how the objective system is evolving. 

Whereas Ti-Ne in me at least tends to be less objectively conclusive or directive. It maps out how everything is interrelated very systematically, and is far from visionary, more deconstructing than anything. 

Both Ti and Si in me tend to be all about reducing the number of situations that can possibly occur by forming a very general mapping of all that can occur.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Random idea generation is sort of in the eyes of the beholder. Subjective. What's random to one person might seem predictable to another. A lot of that is more of a thinking thing.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

INTJs because they care a lot more; INTPs because they are. 

oooohh!


----------



## bearotter

True, Ne is mediated with unconscious Si after all in Ne-doms. I'd say emphasis for my point is more on generation than perceived randomness. With my extent of introversion, I don't think I'd fit the bill


----------



## Surreal Snake

Intelligence is an Individual thing,not a Type thing.Some people love to group their collective brilliance.Bullshit


----------



## HelloOutThere

Surreal Snake said:


> Intelligence is an Individual thing,not a Type thing.Some people love to group their collective brilliance.Bullshit


Are you saying there's no correlation? Because it has been more or less prooven that there is a correlation. I'm under the impression most researchers claim INTJ.


----------



## bearotter

@HelloOutThere: Then again, what definition of type and what notion of intelligence are they going by? Are they going by the cognitive model, or by a much more raw J vs. P preference? E.g. what about ENTP's, which are also NTFS types...I would strongly suspect there's a good amount of confusion about Ne v. Ni dominance.


----------



## Hikikomori

ESFPs.


----------



## ManWithoutHats

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> INTP master race reporting in.


Ah, this line combined with your Avatar is so awesome it's hilarious.


----------



## ManWithoutHats

The poll should have been 'Is one type smarter than the other or no' (working title; I have no time for such trivialities (nor any creativity (but a sufficient ego defense, at least in my first tier of parentheses (but plenty of parentheses (especially if I add a smiley ( )))))). That would have yielded more interesting results; I really don't know what to do with this (but I'm gonna vote INTJ (damn infereior Fe combined with Ne compulsive-noncomformity)).


----------



## dream land fantasy

well.......... INTP i guess


----------



## WOLFsanctuary

INTJ <3

By 4w3 SX/SP


----------



## HelloOutThere

bearotter said:


> @_HelloOutThere_: Then again, what definition of type and what notion of intelligence are they going by? Are they going by the cognitive model, or by a much more raw J vs. P preference? E.g. what about ENTP's, which are also NTFS types...I would strongly suspect there's a good amount of confusion about Ne v. Ni dominance.


I don't know the exact theoretical rationale behind it (but even if there weren't one, this wouldn't disproove the result), but I suppose that yes, it has something to do with N dominance. Generally the same sources have hinted the following ranking:

1. INTJ
2. INTP
3. ENTJ
4. ENTP

After that comes NFs, and then the sensors. As for why ENTPs, being NTFS types as well, have lower IQs than other NTs I'm unable to explain why... It would be interesting to see the average IQ for each type though (but I suspect this won't ever be established when taking into account how MBTI continuously has failed to be accepted as a science, as well as the entire controversy regarding such statistics).


----------



## bearotter

@HelloOutThere

I would say that if a sound theoretical rationalle isn't there though, it is questionable how interesting their conclusion is, for the simple reason that "intelligence" is generally a theoretical thing to discuss anyway, a means we use to describe rather than a strict objective phenomenon. There are many ways to define it, leading to different emphases.

Ni-Te is a very nice cognitive model of dynamic intuition plus objective reasoning, but its emphasis being so different from the NTP model, I would sort of question direct comparisons made.

Even worse to compare with NFP, though I suppose ENFP are indeed Fi-Te axis with intuitive dominance, so somewhat similar.

I honestly think as the intuitive counterpart of my type, I have found ENTP very impressively draw on their cognitive style.

If you take me as an example, I score highest on intuition in your typical test, much more at Ni than Ne, but as far as Jungian theory, no question I am an introverted T type. What would I be counted as in such a survey, an INTP? That is the big trouble. 

I would say in terms of pure Jungian type, it is pretty hard to get an accurate sense of all this.


----------



## Mioonebet

INTP, no dout, on any given day.


----------



## Gantz

Why, my type of course!


----------



## Chiaroscuro

We INTs really love to debate, at least, I speak for myself and the ones I know. This doesn't actually mean we consider ourselves smarter of course. I could easily retake the test and pretend to be an INTP just by knowing what the questions look for, then jump from thread to thread saying "HEY GAIS I AM INTP I AM SMARTEST TYPE". But that would be pointless. An intellectual is someone who enjoys using their intellectual capacity, and follows some intellectual pursuits. Keirsey called ESFP the performer. But we are INTs, we will destroy the opposition with cold logic. This is why we are arguing which type is smarter. It's a joke that only we can understand.


----------



## Ghostsoul

Neither of them because intelligence is subjective.


----------



## Amacey

I think that any type can be smarte , I know an enfp who has a genius level IQ and there are many famous people out there with high IQ and in different mbti 

If I had to choose between intp and intj I would vote intj since I know most them and they are all really intelligent


----------



## chicklit

Well, INTJs definitely _feel_ more than INTPs (in theory). If we just go by the shallow assumption that thinking equals intelligence, INTPs. In real life - depends on the individual.


----------



## Desiderium

Neither; ESFJ's are the smartest.

Type alone isn't enough to dictate intelligence. :dry:

There is no "smartest type", some types may have a propensity towards having higher IQ's but as mentioned; intelligence is subjective.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Hmm a more interesting poll would be 'which type has the most inflated view of their intelligence?' =p


----------



## ChocolateBunny

I voted INTP because I'm biased :tongue: 

...but it really does depend on your definition of intelligence. I don't think either type is inherently more intelligent just by being that type. This question shall forever be argued between the two types who can each skew the definition of intelligence (slightly...or maybe not?) to fit their own type stereotypes. It's basically an argument of what intelligence is while at the same time trying to find out which is smarter.


----------



## aendern

I think perhaps INTPs will be more knowledgeable about themselves, their place in the world, people relationships, etc. I think they will be more inclined to read up about subjects and become very knowledgeable about subjects that are quite useless in everyday life. ("learning for the sake of learning"). I think they are more likely to be college professors, and damn good ones, too. They are like my chemistry teacher I had senior year who knew so goddamn much about chemistry she could just tell you anything and everything you could possibly dream of. Stuff you would never dream of because it would be useless to even consider it. But she could tell it to you. 

And INTJs will be more knowledgeable about efficiency and the "best" (most cost-effective, fastest, easiest, etc.) way of doing something. They will be knowledgeable about topics that are very applicable to achieving results and success. Moreover, I think they will even be _more interested_ in topics that are useful to them rather than topics that aren't so useful to them. They may think outer space is cool, but they probably wouldn't bother going super deep into knowledge about space if it didn't relate to their life in any way because they would see it as a "waste of time."

Neither is smarter than the other. Smart is kind of a dumb word, anyway.. I think that's why it has developed quite a number of informal meanings that are unrelated to "intelligent."

If we go by the common UK meaning "neatly dressed," then I would say INTJs?

If we go by the common North American meaning "sarcastic," then I would say INTPs?


----------



## smokeafish

Intelligence Test Performance and Myers Briggs type | Personality Research 
This has a huge amount of data and has shown that INTPs score higher on iq tests, as to who is more intelligent, that is a different question. I'm an intp and whilst I could just claim we're smarter my mind would never forgive me for it. Scoring higher on an iq test means you have a higher iq in the fields of numerical reasoning, spatial, logical and a few other skills. We may have higher iq in these areas but in fairness that is not a true indication of intelligence, just what iq tests measure. Give us an eq test and see what happens.


----------



## kittenmogu

I'm sitting over here taking absolute delight and giddiness with the fact that this poll exists and has garnered the serious attention that it has. Are we going to have a serious poll about who has the bigger average dick size too? What will MBTI reveal next? INTJ vs. INTP, to be continued.


----------



## RunForCover07

Types don't define how smart you are. How willing you are to learn and seek information and to learn about the world does.


----------



## Ephemerald

Neither. They have different "intelligences," strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Chiaroscuro

@kittenmogu this thread is obviously a joke. No one really takes it seriously except ISFPs. To answer your question, average D size goes to INTJ. The Ni+Te combination stimulates lower extremity growth, while Ti+Ne is more likely to be under 5 inches due to inactivity. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kittenmogu

Chiaroscuro said:


> @kittenmogu this thread is obviously a joke. No one really takes it seriously except ISFPs. To answer your question, average D size goes to INTJ. The Ni+Te combination stimulates lower extremity growth, while Ti+Ne is more likely to be under 5 inches due to inactivity.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh, it's a _joke_. You got me there. How could I be so silly.

I thought it was more likely that Ni+Te would stimulate extra brain growth, thus consuming resources otherwise used for lower extremity growth. The brain is the largest sex organ anyway, so that's no loss.


----------



## mikan

No one.


----------



## Strelok

kittenmogu said:


> I'm sitting over here taking absolute delight and giddiness with the fact that this poll exists and has garnered the serious attention that it has. Are we going to have a serious poll about who has the bigger average dick size too? What will MBTI reveal next? INTJ vs. INTP, to be continued.


It is pretty depressing.


----------



## Protagoras

I think this thread is either a pretty good attempt at trolling or the result of an amazing lack of reflection about 'intelligence' and its relation to personality types. But because I am charitable, I am gonna say... trolling.


----------



## Golden Rose

This is basically PerC's version of comparing penis sizes.


----------



## ae1905

Shamy said:


> This is basically PerC's version of comparing penis sizes.


are you calling some of us "dicks"? :shocked: 

wait, my side is winning! :wink: 

:laughing:


----------



## Golden Rose

ae1905 said:


> are you calling some of us "dicks"? :shocked:
> 
> wait, my side is winning! :wink: :laughing:


I'm fond of INTPnis and INTJunk, myself. 

When are you going to put your INTJ dress on?
I can't wait to see you come crash our subforum.


----------



## ae1905

Shamy said:


> I'm fond of INTPnis and INTJunk, myself.
> 
> When are you going to put your INTJ dress on?
> I can't wait to see you come crash our subforum.



I know things are kinda dull over there in INTJ land, but you'll just have to wait your turn, dear

I'm in high demand, ya know, and it's not hard to see why--just look at my avatar: they love me!


----------



## nO_d3N1AL

I think xxTP types are definitely the "wisest". Depends how you define "smart". I tend to think of INTPs as your sterotypical Greek philosopher/mathematician type.


----------



## tery999

INTP are much much more anoying, which would give them the impression that they are stupid.
INTJ are more conservative, which would give them the impression that they are atleast normal.

Basicly stupid INTJ >looks smarter> normal INTP in peoples eyes.


----------



## intp_gurl

Which one is smarter.....the one who studies the most.

both are equally knowledgeable, depending on interest.
personally, I think most intj are more disciplined than I am, so their grades are better.


----------



## Strelok

intp_gurl said:


> Which one is smarter.....the one who studies the most.
> 
> both are equally knowledgeable, depending on interest.
> personally, I think most intj are more disciplined than I am, so their grades are better.


In contrast, my grades had nothing to do with whether I understood something or not, so I didn't bother with that rat-race.


----------



## ae1905

Intp.


----------



## ai.tran.75

Intp 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Agelastos

tery999 said:


> INTP are much much more anoying, which would give them the impression that they are stupid.
> INTJ are more conservative, which would give them the impression that they are atleast normal.
> 
> Basicly stupid INTJ >looks smarter> normal INTP in peoples eyes.


Eh... "okay"? Please, explain why INTPs are more annoying than INTJs!
As for the rest of your post: cultural bias. In my country, it's pretty much the other way around.


----------



## Strelok

Agelastos said:


> In my country, it's pretty much the other way around.


A place where J-ness isn't worshipped? I must move there.


----------



## Agelastos

Strelok said:


> A place where J-ness isn't worshipped? I must move there.


Open-mindedness is the patron deity of Sweden. Unfortunately, even this religion has its fair share of zealots.


----------



## Antipode

Hmm... Well, INTJs are better at implementing concepts.

INTPs are better at constructing the concepts. 

But, I'd have to tip the scales slightly to the INTJs, because they have both a better ability at implementing, and a fair ability in constructing.

This merely joining the cute fun of the question. Obviously, nothing is that simple.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

INTPs because they know that implementing ideas in reality is pointless.


----------



## Korpasov

INTJ reporting in. I voted for INTPs. The statistics may tip the scales towards the INTJs, but there are so many variables to count (such as education, income, etc.) that it's not prudent to go on those alone.

Of course, my evidence is no better. The reason I picked INTP is because they're the type known to research/read about things for the sake of the knowledge itself. So in terms of general knowledge, I'm sure the INTPs have the INTJs beat by a mile. I, for instance, have difficulty pushing myself to read something unless I see a long-term value in implementing such knowledge.

However - when it comes to implementing the knowledge and constructing plans of action, the INTJs likely have a lead.


----------



## neurosis

INTPs don't get enough props.


----------



## Chiaroscuro

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> INTPs because they know that implementing ideas in reality is pointless.


Spoken like a true nihilist/ depression patient


----------



## Madman

_I_ am the smartest person alive, and it's true because it's a narcissistic fact.


----------



## RedRedo

INTP is smarter, due to INTJ's inferior Se that makes their ideas often ungrounded from reality/facts, vs INTP's perceiving tendancy to be happy sitting around thinking/studying instead of acting, which lets them build up their intellectual tendencies and knowledge. But INTJ is far more able to apply their intelligence to the world around them, and for that matter, show it on tests. Therefore it does not matter if an INTP is smart, and INTJ does not need to be compared to them.

I am not a fan of IQ tests, nor of vague statements about "types of intelligence". There is one clear thing called intelligence, and science sucks at measuring it.


----------



## Angaliene

People always get so upset by generalizing types by intelligence. 'Intelligence' IS a broad term, but the universal definition of 'smart' could easily be used when answering this. 

I say INTP, because they might be more open minded and more prone to learning new concepts.


----------



## Tahaa

The most intelligent person I have ever met (in relation to IQ) is an ENTJ.


----------



## ScarlettHayden

They're different types of smarts. This would be a case of which type of smarts I prefer, which would be INTJ.


----------



## Ninjaws

I Hate Therapists said:


> Neither. Intelligence doesn't influence type, INTJs and INTPs just appear smarter because of their mannerisms.


----------



## Can Wang

I vote for INTP.
Though INTP is clever， maybe INTJ can be more successful.


----------



## benoticed

It's going to have to be INTP for me.



I'm slowy becoming one as I...let go of my feelings it seems? 

Thank you Frozen.


----------



## Cesspool

Statistics have shown the INTP to be the most intelligent type, with the INTJ the second most. 

What's most interesting is the difference in scores between the INTP and the INTJ are greater than the different in scores of any other adjacent types (meaning the INTP is the smartest type by FAR. It's not a close comparison, the INTP scores almost 30% higher than the INTJ on these tests.

Although TBH, in my experience INTJ's aren't actually that smart. From what I've seen, xSTP's, ExTJ's, and ENFP's are smarter than INTJ's.


----------



## ViceCityGentleman

INTP. They use logic instead of strategy, or both together.


----------



## Blue Soul

I think this thread is pretty pointless, unless the type of thinking is specified. INTPs and INTJs are both intelligent, but in their own ways. There are different kinds of intelligence, so INTPs might be better at one task, while INTJs may be better at another one. Apples and oranges.

So many here seem to be calling the "statistics" card without backing up their statements. Though if I had to guess, in raw calculative horsepower I'd go with INTP. However, INTJs have amazing mental stamina AND focus. It all depends what you're looking for, in my opinion.


----------



## VinnieBob

neither
let the stroke fest continue


----------



## Blue Soul

Vinniebob said:


> neither


Care to further explain that?


----------



## VinnieBob

smartness is owned by no one
all types have their talents
all the true geniuses through out history have been of every kind of personality type
besides, in the grand scheme of life does it really matter?


----------



## Blue Soul

Vinniebob said:


> smartness is owned by no one
> all types have their talents
> all the true geniuses through out history have been of every kind of personality type
> besides, in the grand scheme of life does it really matter?


I agree, every type has something unique to offer. Quick emotional intelligence is so often ignored in discussions like these, in favor of NTs. I think it would be a mistake to underestimate any type.


----------



## fuliajulia

I said INTP, but I've only seen evidence that IQ (if you give that any credence ) correlates with introversion and intuition.


----------



## NTlazerman

*INTP* (Because there is so much disagreements with the functions, I mean the Ti-doms with Ne+Si/Si+Ne here).

-Faster at accepting new theories
-"Smarter" but necessarily not more intelligent
-More subjective with their theories, often a bit biased in their observations
-More opinionated about raw data
-Personal attachment to tehnical details
-Pump in everything, then make up own conclusions (that are usually right, though)
-More of a "what if" approach
-More hunch-based theorizing

*INTJ *(Ni-doms with Te+Fi/Fi+Te)

-More stubborn with new theories, don't accept them until a certain amount of concrete proof is presented
-More objectively intelligent (but usually less "smart" and "witty")
-Much more objective
-Handle technical data without any subjective bias
-Personal attachment on the meaning of data
-Make conclusions based on objective evidence
-More sceptical
-Don't jump ship until certain that the other theory is right


----------



## Serpent

*facepalm*


----------



## BigApplePi

Each is shmarta dan d'other.

INTP for breadth; INTJ for depth. 

What? Ya wanna compare apples and oranges? Apples can be yellow or red. Mix yellow and red and you get orange. Exceptions are green. That's broadness. Oranges? They are deep orange ... when developed.


----------



## Blue Soul

BigApplePi said:


> Each is shmarta dan d'other.
> 
> INTP for breadth; INTJ for depth.
> 
> What? Ya wanna compare apples and oranges? Apples can be yellow or red. Mix yellow and red and you get orange. Exceptions are green. That's broadness. Oranges? They are deep orange ... when developed.


Mmm, fruity. 

Orange color or not, still tastes like apple. Besides, there are red oranges too. Let's just throw in the lemons as well.


----------



## salt

why you asked this when you know everyone just gonna say "there are many types of smarts" and not vote for anthing


----------



## muslamicinfidel

Esfp


----------



## muslamicinfidel

None of them. Smart people are smarter.


----------



## sweetraglansweater

My insights are purely antiedotal but based on my friend groups of INTJs and INTPs I've noticed this:

INTPs tend to be smarter, with more dynamic and abstract thinking and speculation, greater memory capacity and quick wit.
INTJs are very smart but tend to be dismissive of thoughts/ideas that don't "fit" into their framework -unless given concrete reasons to do so. 

I think the 'p' powere helps INTP's seek and retain more information, which might make them smarter.

However, most of the INTP guys I know take FOREVER to get their act together, often struggling socially and economically to find their place in the world, despite their brilliance.

INTJ's get more shit done. They pick a path and plod along towards it. It's quite impressive.

In terms of results, INTP's may be more brilliant thinkers but INTJ's have their act together. It ends up panning out to 'even' IMO.


----------



## BigApplePi

muslamicinfidel said:


> None of them. Smart people are smarter.


None of them? What do you mean, "None of them"? You mean INTx's are never smarter than other INTx's? 

Smart people are smarter? Smarter than what? Are you saying there are smart people smarter than smart people? If a person is smart enough to be smart why couldn't they outsmart a smart person who is also smart? How smart is it to say this? What about smart alecs? Is a smart alec smarter than a smart ass? What about a smarty pants?


----------



## muslamicinfidel

BigApplePi said:


> None of them? What do you mean, "None of them"? You mean INTx's are never smarter than other INTx's?
> 
> Smart people are smarter? Smarter than what? Are you saying there are smart people smarter than smart people? If a person is smart enough to be smart why couldn't they outsmart a smart person who is also smart? How smart is it to say this? What about smart alecs? Is a smart alec smarter than a smart ass? What about a smarty pants?


I'm saying it's difficult to differentiate between the "smartness" of one type opposed to another. There's a huge variety within types. So some INTPs are smart, some are not, Some INTJs are smart, others are not. There may be ESFP types that outsmart both INTPs and INTJs...they might not even know their MBTI type and just consider themselves to be smart. The smartest person i know, if i was to box him into a type, is probably an ENTJ. Another very smart person i know and have huge respect for i would say is an ISTP or ISTJ.

As for alecs, asses, and pants I think it goes something like this: Smarty pants > Smart alec > smart ass. This is based on my subjective interpretation of the valence of each of those three terms. I hope that's clear enough smarty pants!!


----------



## BigApplePi

muslamicinfidel said:


> I'm saying it's difficult to differentiate between the "smartness" of one type opposed to another.


Seems a smart answer. Just because INTPs and INTJs are thinking types doesn't mean their thinking has to be of high quality. A person who practices, say shooting off their mouth a lot, doesn't necessary mean they are good at it. Yet if they do it a lot, and they encounter feedback of a positive or negative nature, they are more likely to take notice and improve something.


----------



## muslamicinfidel

BigApplePi said:


> Seems a smart answer. Just because INTPs and INTJs are thinking types doesn't mean their thinking has to be of high quality. A person who practices, say shooting off their mouth a lot, doesn't necessary mean they are good at it. Yet if they do it a lot, and they encounter feedback of a positive or negative nature, they are more likely to take notice and improve something.


Exactly. I think all the smarts are important though. We should utilise a combination of different skill sis what is necessary...probably why research is moving towards a collaborative and/or multidisciplinary approach. So like looking at this through the prism of MBTi, i think it's necessary to have those S doms and F doms working with the T doms. The S doms can tell us what all the facts are, the T doms can tell us how they all fit together and what the bigger picture is, and the F doms can worry about all the ethical issues associated with whatever it is that is being done. Of course at the same time a single individual can just hone their skills in each of these domains and do everything alone but it's much more fun tackling something with company....sometimes...until they start getting in the way and you have to scream at them to fuck off hah.

Which reminds me, PRISM is probably going to be the new MBTI in another 20 years once it gets cheap enough to roll out to the normal person. But how much can we rely on brain imaging when we don't even know what it really means. Can we equate more blood flow in a particular region with improved function? :/


EDIT: Ignore all that waffle shit i just typed.

EDITEDIT: Turns out it's all bollocks.

https://neurobollocks.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/prism-brain-mapping/

:/


----------



## Blue Soul

muslamicinfidel said:


> Exactly. I think all the smarts are important though. We should utilise a combination of different skill sis what is necessary...probably why research is moving towards a collaborative and/or multidisciplinary approach. So like looking at this through the prism of MBTi, i think it's necessary to have those S doms and F doms working with the T doms. The S doms can tell us what all the facts are, the T doms can tell us how they all fit together and what the bigger picture is, and the F doms can worry about all the ethical issues associated with whatever it is that is being done. Of course at the same time a single individual can just hone their skills in each of these domains and do everything alone but it's much more fun tackling something with company....sometimes...until they start getting in the way and you have to scream at them to fuck off hah.


It's called "society", and it almost isn't broken.


----------



## muslamicinfidel

Blue Soul said:


> It's called "society", and it almost isn't broken.


Yes I know. Te point i was trying to make, quite poorly by the looks of it, is that traditionally, especially in Psychology and the other social sciences, it has always been about getting first author/single author publications and the prestige of the researcher. What we are seeing now is a more collaborative approach to science where research teams are merging with others in order to do better science. 

This paper is a brilliant example, it has around 270 authors:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full.pdf

It makes me happy


----------



## Blue Soul

muslamicinfidel said:


> Yes I know. Te point i was trying to make, quite poorly by the looks of it, is that traditionally, especially in Psychology and the other social sciences, it has always been about getting first author/single author publications and the prestige of the researcher. What we are seeing now is a more collaborative approach to science where research teams are merging with others in order to do better science.
> 
> This paper is a brilliant example, it has around 270 authors:
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full.pdf
> 
> It makes me happy


That sounds awesome. Next step: hive mind.


----------



## muslamicinfidel

Blue Soul said:


> That sounds awesome. Next step: hive mind.


If you read that paper you'd see it's the exact opposite of hive mind. 

More collaborators = more perspectives = more challenges = better science. The ultimate goal is truth.


----------



## Simpson17866

An INTP with 120 IQ is smarter than an INTJ with 100 IQ

An INTJ with 120 IQ is smarter than an INTP with 100 IQ


----------



## VinnieBob

muslamicinfidel said:


> None of them. Smart people are smarter.


and smarter people are more smarter then smart people
dumb people aren't as dumb as dumber people, but smarter
there for all dumb people are smart:tongue:

that is all
we now continue with strokefest

this public service announcement has been brought to you by dumb and dumber
a subsidiary of enneagram enterprises


----------



## Intpee

Smarter? INTP.
More Intelligent? INTJ.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse

Statistically, intellectually-gifted people are most likely to be xNxP, _or_ INTJ. It's a toss-up.


----------



## Donkey D Kong

The middle one


----------



## Blue Soul

muslamicinfidel said:


> If you read that paper you'd see it's the exact opposite of hive mind.
> 
> More collaborators = more perspectives = more challenges = better science. The ultimate goal is truth.


Wow, the author of that little article certainly embarassed himself.

Edit: Oops, read the wrong link. ^^


----------



## muslamicinfidel

Blue Soul said:


> Wow, the author of that little article certainly embarassed himself.
> 
> Edit: Oops, read the wrong link. ^^


¬_¬


----------



## Jagdpanther

What the heck is that question ?

None is smarter than the other. There are morons in both types.


----------



## Strelok

sweetraglansweater said:


> However, most of the INTP guys I know take FOREVER to get their act together, often struggling socially and economically to find their place in the world, despite their brilliance.


Problem? Why does "succeeding" in a greedy, sick, brain-dead economic system matter?


----------



## shameless

They are smart in different ways so that is why I would argue neither is inherently smarter then the other because both have blind spots the other can poke a hole thru. 

My mom is INTJ & my stepdad is INTP so I know very well how the two pale next to each other. 

INTJ is probably going to on the surface come off as more intelligent on a practical level. (Lets face it alot of NTP knowledge could be considered irrelevant even if its there). 

My INTP step father is actually academically smarter. He retains academia in advanced pace and speed and ample amounts of data (my INTJ mother cannot do that). But she is by far more sophisticated in something like being a strategist. (I would never want my INTP stepdad to be a strategist, lol that would be just terrible his Ne does not suffice in Big or High stakes strategy). But if I want to hear a well read person speak prefer my INTP stepdad. 

INTP stepdads Ne/Fe makes him less narrow in thinking. I think he has far better critical thinking and analytical skills in regards to tactic-Which I think is also heavy Ti (cuz I can relate to that trait in some ways)

INTJ hands down best strategist but possibly because of inferior Fi (correction tert Fi), just has no comprehension on that some things can be warded off (where strategy is not needed if just being slightly diplomatic-compromise is often seen as weak to them-)

Anyways they are just both really smart in different ways. INTJ way more suited to be a strategist, INTP far more suited to analyze and filter philosophy or critical thinking.

Who would I prefer to be in the company with if there is an apocalypse INTJ (she would drive me nuts tho with her lil to no bending in group dynamics)

Who would I prefer to listen to their intellect INTP stepdad (except when he gets on pretentious tangent then can be intolerable)


----------



## Blue Soul

Cinnamon83 said:


> They are smart in different ways so that is why I would argue neither is inherently smarter then the other because both have blind spots the other can poke a hole thru.
> 
> My mom is INTJ & my stepdad is INTP so I know very well how the two pale next to each other.
> 
> INTJ is probably going to on the surface come off as more intelligent on a practical level. (Lets face it alot of NTP knowledge could be considered irrelevant even if its there).
> 
> My INTP step father is actually academically smarter. He retains academia in advanced pace and speed and ample amounts of data (my INTJ mother cannot do that). But she is by far more sophisticated in something like being a strategist. (I would never want my my INTP stepdad to be a strategist, lol that would be just terrible his Ne does not suffice in Big or High stakes strategy). But if I want to hear a well read person speak prefer my INTP stepdad.
> 
> INTP stepdads Ne/Fe makes him less narrow in thinking. I think he has far better critical thinking and analytical skills in regards to tactic-Which I think is also heavy Ti (cuz I can relate to that trait in some ways)
> 
> *INTJ hands down best strategist but possibly because of inferior Fi*, just has no comprehension on that some things can be warded off (where strategy is not needed if just being slightly diplomatic-compromise is often seen as weak to them-)
> 
> Anyways they are just both really smart in different ways. INTJ way more suited to be a strategist, INTP far more suited to analyze and filter philosophy or critical thinking.
> 
> Who would I prefer to be in the company with if there is an apocalypse INTJ (she would drive me nuts tho with her lil to no bending in group dynamics)
> 
> Who would I prefer to listen to their intellect INTP stepdad (except when he gets on pretentious tangent then can be intolerable)


INTJs have tertiary Fi, which means that they can seem cold but really understand more emotion than you'd think. INTPs' Fe is inferior, so they come off as warmer, but they don't really understand emotions.

INTJ - cold on the outside, warm on the inside.
INTP - warm on the outside, cold on the inside.


----------



## shameless

Blue Soul said:


> INTJs have tertiary Fi, which means that they can seem cold but really understand more emotion than you'd think. INTPs' Fe is inferior, so they come off as warmer, but they don't really understand emotions.
> 
> INTJ - cold on the outside, warm on the inside.
> INTP - warm on the outside, cold on the inside.


Oops sorry my bat I should have referred to the order of functions.

And I can see what you say on both.


----------



## shameless

Oooo I vote ISTP (no not an option)

Ok well ISTP have the Ti & Ni abilities mixed with Se. So there for probably very likely to compliment both INTJ/INTP traits. INTJ & INTP are more like specialists in their strengths one could say an ISTP is what produces with their traits combined. 

Yeah ok I wasnt entirely serious btw, with this silly post just now. But it could have some truth on a blended version while the other two are specialists.


----------



## Lakigigar

BigApplePi said:


> How intelligent is it when an INTP just sits on their situation while an INTJ goes out there and does something about it?


It has nothing to doo with intelligence. If you say it like this, you are just saying Donald Trump is smarter than every Perc User. ...


----------



## Vast Silence

Sorry, angry post. Deleted.


----------



## B3LIAL

Being smart and being intelligent are not the same thing.


----------



## angelfish

I think INTP intelligence is slightly more sophisticated, but INTJ intelligence is more likely to make it out of their minds and into the world. And it's certainly not lacking. It's just different. Ultimately a little more fuzzy/subjective because of Ni, though. Ti is a judgment process and prioritizes. It gives - IMO - the INTP with their leading T a slight advantage in identifying what's most important and what's not. Even though INTJ's Te is better at identifying what's most applicable. It's just... if the world were under threat and I needed someone to generate ideas for saving it... INTP. If it were under imminent threat and I need a solution in three days, INTJ. And a group of SJs to apply it to existing structures and SPs to on-ground implement it.


----------



## lookslikeiwin

I think they are equal.
INTJs improve their intelligence and knowledge base quickly in a given area before moving on to the next, and INTPs go more slowly in several areas at once so we can make more connections between them.


----------



## BigApplePi

Lakigigar said:


> It has nothing to doo with intelligence. If you say it like this, you are just saying Donald Trump is smarter than every Perc User. ...


You have nailed the issue. Suppose I define "intelligence" as the capacity to do things. The next question, is what kind of things can a living creature do? Here are some kinds of intelligences I recall:
1. Ability to manipulate numbers
2. Ability to comprehend reading material
3. Musical skill
4. 3-D perception skill
5. Kinethetic skill
6. Memory
7. Inner self-awareness
8. Social awareness
All of these represent an ability to do various kinds of things, more or less, which enable us to get on with living though there may be some overlap.

Donald Trump has a great capacity to interact skillfully on his immediate environment it would seem. He fails to see how this interaction affects society as a whole. That means he has one kind of intelligence, but lacks another.


----------



## mqg96

I'm going with my INTP's!


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon

hahahaha, what is that? Is that a real question? Next step is thinking personality types define the consistency of your farts. Oh my...


----------



## Prada

Entj


----------



## Vast Silence

Prada said:


> Entj


You win the internet x)


----------



## Miniblini

Dental Floss Tycoon said:


> hahahaha, what is that? Is that a real question? Next step is thinking personality types define the consistency of your farts. Oh my...


ISFP=Airy, yet bubbly... with a hint of citrus.

Shhhh, it's science, I swear.

hello! <3 whatever Tapatalk!


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon

Miniblini said:


> ISFP=Airy, yet bubbly... with a hint of citrus.
> 
> Shhhh, it's science, I swear.
> 
> hello! <3 whatever Tapatalk!


Yep. I have met SFs far smarter than any INTJ I know, INTPs more sensible than ESFJs and ENTJs sweeter in their personal lives than ISFPs. All of these are examples from my life experience. Instead of using MBTI as an useful tool, people turn it into an ego game. Sometimes I wonder what I'm doing in PerC.


----------



## Strelok

Dental Floss Tycoon said:


> Sometimes I wonder what I'm doing in PerC.


Trying to enlighten people


----------



## Vahn_Narsamee

Although you may be able to generalize many things, I don't feel that this works well.


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon

Strelok said:


> Trying to enlighten people


Quite arrogant, isn't it?


----------



## Conterphobia

B3LIAL said:


> Being smart and being intelligent are not the same thing.


What do you mean?


----------



## Aridela

Intp. But maybe I'm biased


----------



## MisterPerfect

> Statistics have shown INTJ. Though, I think INTJ has a more balanced intelligence, like a combination of the logical abilities of the INTP and the creative and writing abilities of the INFP. Our powerful intuition is often more efficient than logic or feeling. But I fear becoming the jack of all trades and the master of none. Yes, the average INTJ is smarter than the average INTP, but they have Einstein and Leonardo Da Vinci. Then again, Newton, I've always seen typed as INTJ. Actually, there are about 1.5 times as many INTP as INTJ, so that may have something to do with this imbalance.


Jack of all trades is a good thing is it not?


----------



## saphireINTP

"Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will live its entire life believing that of is stupid."


----------



## Originalgod

According to IQ, INTPs; however I voted INTJ because of these reasons:

1.- INTJs plan, INTPs rarely do so.
2.- INTJs have a higher salary than INTPs.
3.- INTJs have more social skills than the INTPs.
4.- INTJs can be scientists, philosophers and leaders, while INTPs normally are limited to the first two.

From personal experience I can also say INTJs always try to do things perfectly, while INTPs commonly do just what they were asked.


----------



## ai.tran.75

Thurshgodi said:


> 4.- INTJs can be scientists, philosophers and leaders, while INTPs normally are limited to the first two.
> 
> .


What about Einstein, Socrates , Noam Chomsky etc 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zeta Neprok

ai.tran.75 said:


> Noam Chomsky


Isn't Noam Chomsky an INFJ?

Anyway, my answer to the question is none. Typology has nothing to do with intelligence.


----------



## MBTI

No matter who wins, we all lose.


----------



## Strelok

Thurshgodi said:


> INTPs are bad at relating to other people, but INTJs good at relating to other people :]]]





Thurshgodi said:


> INTJs can do more things than INTPs.





Thurshgodi said:


> INTJs do things better than INTPs.





Thurshgodi said:


> INTJs try to do things perfectly, but INTPs just follow orders 'cause they is dumb


You've really got this #INTJmasterrace thing down to a science. (I guess because you guys are the scientists, hehehe)


----------



## MissAverage

This thread makes me cringe ....


----------



## MissAverage

Here's a piece of candy, a gold star, and a pat on the head.


----------



## Static Void

*picks up 10 foot pole*

...nope, still not touching this question


----------



## Gossip Goat

Definitely not the people asking and answering this question seriously.


----------



## Strelok

MissAverage said:


> Here's a piece of candy, a gold star, and a pat on the head.


Needs more kicks in the ass


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34

EddyNash said:


> Jack of all trades is a good thing is it not?


It has its advantages and disadvantages.

You quoted a post of mine from 6 years ago, lol. I' don't even know whether I agree with my original post. I was looking at myself and extrapolated for all INTJs. For me, it may have more to do with my ADHD than my personality type. I throw myself at something, get bored at which point I'm not quite an expert, then move on to something else.


----------



## BigApplePi

INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se; INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. Assume each has those functions practiced equally in some sense. Assume "smart" = the ability to carry out some useful activity in a timely fashion.

Now what? I'll take a shot. 

I'll assume Te Se Ne Fe are the actual actions (useful activity) while Ni Fi Ti Si are the tools. Te ranks up there. So does Fe as those take action while Se and Ne just observe. An INTP can do well with the Ti tool for Fe; an INTJ can do well with the Ni tool for Te. I left out Fi and Si tools. They are weaker but have to be of good service and not used incorrectly to count.

Although an INTP can do well with the Ti tool for Fe, what good is Fe without the proper values of Fi? Although an INTJ can do well with the Ni tool for Te, what good is Ni if it has a limitation or error that Ne can catch?

My conclusion is that "smart" is a linear concept: X is smarter than Y. The variables of smartness are more than linear. They are the accurate and timely application of all eight cognitive functions, meaning eight variables. We need a concept or theory to integrate all eight.


----------



## Alpha_Orionis

MBTI has no correlation with intelligence. It just shows in what manner a person is thinking. Also IQ tests are biased toward NT so they may score better on IQ tests. But that only shows logical intelligence, nothing more.


----------



## MonieJ

Intelligence isn't type specific


----------



## Elleah

INTJ!!!


----------



## Lucan1010

Obviously the INFJ


----------



## BigApplePi

Lucan1010 said:


> Obviously the INFJ


INFJs combine feeling and thinking functions so maybe they are more well rounded than the others. They have a heavier burden though.
=====================



I reread my post #571 I must have had something in mind but that is terrible writing.


----------



## Infinitus

Voted INTP. Some of them seem like they really need this accolade, & I’m happy to oblige. I’ll stick to my title of “world’s greatest lover”.


----------



## Djairouks

The premise is false to begin with, there isn't one type of intelligence or smarts, one can be extremely versed in tech, science and be totally inept physically, mecanically and socially.
So what really would you consider smart, you'd have to give a better definition of the question, for it to be answered correctly, but still doesn't prove shit, like to me the top smartest person would be a Jason Bourne type, can do most anything and keep himself safe, not really the Ellon Musk type smart typical socially awkward very innovative person. So everyone would have his own definition of smart, I also consider my roof building friend, which can hunt and live with natural resources easily, smart so the word is too broad to begin with.


----------



## Sygma

Obviously the ESTP in the back selling inflated tickets to watch the debate


----------



## fleursdetilleul

I would say both are smart in their own way, at their own thing.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> I never thought of that. As an INTP I don't always experience it that way. When someone makes a judgment, they are taking away my freedom. When I make a statement, I'm offering a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what this means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gathering information increases the certainty of the situation. Judgments made with more knowledge can be put out there, turning Ti into Te like the INTJ. While the INTP is busy pondering, the INTJ makes results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both INTx's like logic. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there are two kinds. One is closed deduction; the other is more open. Enterprises which involve organisms are more open. Think of the Bell curve. Extremes may not occur as often but they affect the overall account. INTPs will try to incorporate extremes (it makes their Fe happy). INTJs will prefer the best results. This has me wondering if INTJs would favor the hard sciences while INTPs might look at the soft sciences more favorably if they accept statistics.


I'm talking about the purpose of the functions. Intuition and Sensing are Perceiving functions meant to take information from the world. Thinking and Feeling are functions meant to send information to the world. It has nothing to do with statements or actions, only intentions.

I was saying you can't gather information if some other piece of information restricts you. INTP's don't care because there's always information you can gather. Because of that, information with higher quality doesn't matter. The thing is, everyone cares about the quality of whatever they do. An INTP is an INTP if they choose to gather less information over more information. As long as they're searching for information, no matter its quality, they will be inferior to the INTJ in terms of intelligence. What I'm touting is that an INTP can choose to spend his life figuring out every pattern in pi for the fun of it. The patterns and possible systems to explain the patterns are infinite because it never repeats but because of that, the INTP isn't satisfied making systems in it because that's simply the pattern of the INTP. If the INTJ wanted to do something interesting with it he would instead look for information to make pi look like all the patterns have been found rather than it actually being the case. The INTJ doesn't stick to the system, he has a picture in his head and learns whatever it calls for learning and doing whatever it calls for doing to make sure it happens. The INTP will die before figuring out every pattern if he sticks to his system. The INTJ will most likely focus on getting the power to misinform people on the true nature of pi and using a sophisticated, yet rational number instead. Sorry, I'm bad at making stories but this is the way I found the numbers to work.

What I was saying about information gathering and eternal happiness is a simplistic way of describing the loop that can go on here and the need to put a priority on what actually matters. To ask yourself "why am I trying to figure out all the patterns of pi?" and to not reply to yourself, "because it's more information". There's a system that explains why pi is infinite but if INTP's are too engrossed making systems out of a system that's designed to handle an infinite number of systems they're going to fall behind the INTJ in true intellect. This system of mine can actually sound a bit like what an INTJ might try doing. Having an Ni goal of rationalizing pi. But the INTP doesn't have a goal. He's spending his time doing internal code to explain some of the patterns pi is making to create other strains of it for the sake of it. Even if he knows it's a system that can handle an infinite number of systems he does it because it satisfies his desire to make systems.

INTP's do care about the situation, but they don't turn Ti into Te unless they're stressed out. They won't be stressed out if they're happy making systems in their heads. There will be situations that call for them to explain what's going on but instead of getting motivated to go deeper by using other functions, they'll retreat to their heads to get caught up in a more intellectually stimulating meaningless system full of endless other systems like that type of system again. That's their goal, right? They're more likely to do that than use their knowledge for anything more than that.

The INTJ is actually more open due to The first function Ni being a perceiving function. They only seem more judgmental due to showing Te, a judging function. This is why these two types are switched in Socionics. I don't know what you mean about organizations that use organisms, pets in the office, or biotech? I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning the bell curve either. What do you mean by extremes and best results? You need to explain that group of the paragraph some more.

A way to make the INTP's smarter than what I've made out of them would to simply have them not make systems in irrational systems but what stops them from doing that and leaning towards it because it's an endless space made for them? That seems like Ni Te over Ti Ne to me because pi still has ways of explaining it to be made. Do you think this specific example can be a metaphor for other things in life? Also, do you think my explanation of the INTP actually sounds more like the INTJ?

Going over this post, I think a line should be drawn with the INTP. A guy who does literally nothing all day but spends time in his head thinking about stuff no one wants to understand ultimately for the sake of it v.s a cynical megalomaniac. INTJ-Pure is more intelligent than INTP-Pure. In my opinion, I can imagine an INTP with some INTJ tendencies using another personality theory like the enneagram as an example to outshine an INTJ with INTP tendencies. I still side with the INTJ with INTP tendencies though, like Elon Musk. I'm mainly fighting over the pure versions though, they have the most, obvious, extreme, and understandable traits.

Basically, I think it comes down to whether someone thinks intellect with a purpose matters more than intellect by itself when defining actual intellect. Also, whether you think the P/J dichotomy matters more than the T/F dichotomy.


----------



## BigApplePi

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> But I think INTPs are more naturally inclined to be smarter, and more knowledgeable in a wider array of subjects.
> INTJs are very knowledgeable about their fields, and what they focus on.


If you mean INTPs favor breadth over depth, that could very well be. I have to add another dimension to rating functions. That is one of development over time, even decades. That is as breadth goes deeper and focus requires supporting input, over time one can speculate INTPs and INTJs become more the same.





ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> Everything else gets put to the side. I tend to get stressed out if I'm forced to adopt too many roles at once, and if I feel like I'm not making any progress on that one thing.


The INTP is happy to think. Add another input then there is something more to feed upon. The INTJ wanting to make progress has to do the opposite: discard.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> I'm talking about the purpose of the functions. Intuition and Sensing are Perceiving functions meant to take information from the world. Thinking and Feeling are functions meant to send information to the world. It has nothing to do with statements or actions, only intentions.


The MBTI separates i from e. That means S & N, T & F may be taking and sending from the inner "world" as well.





triphazex said:


> I was saying you can't gather information if some other piece of information restricts you. INTP's don't care because there's always information you can gather. Because of that, information with higher quality doesn't matter. The thing is, everyone cares about the quality of whatever they do. An INTP is an INTP if they choose to gather less information over more information. As long as they're searching for information, no matter its quality, they will be inferior to the INTJ in terms of intelligence. What I'm touting is that an INTP can choose to spend his life figuring out every pattern in pi for the fun of it. The patterns and possible systems to explain the patterns are infinite because it never repeats but because of that, the INTP isn't satisfied making systems in it because that's simply the pattern of the INTP. If the INTJ wanted to do something interesting with it he would instead look for information to make pi look like all the patterns have been found rather than it actually being the case. The INTJ doesn't stick to the system, he has a picture in his head and learns whatever it calls for learning and doing whatever it calls for doing to make sure it happens. The INTP will die before figuring out every pattern if he sticks to his system. The INTJ will most likely focus on getting the power to misinform people on the true nature of pi and using a sophisticated, yet rational number instead. Sorry, I'm bad at making stories but this is the way I found the numbers to work.


If you are saying the INTP doesn't do much while the INTJ does, that could be true in their purest form. Yet if the INTP does zero while the INTJ does it either right *or* wrong, I would think their intelligence averages out the same.





triphazex said:


> What I was saying about information gathering and eternal happiness is a simplistic way of describing the loop that can go on here and the need to put a priority on what actually matters. To ask yourself "why am I trying to figure out all the patterns of pi?" and to not reply to yourself, "because it's more information". There's a system that explains why pi is infinite but if INTP's are too engrossed making systems out of a system that's designed to handle an infinite number of systems they're going to fall behind the INTJ in true intellect. This system of mine can actually sound a bit like what an INTJ might try doing. Having an Ni goal of rationalizing pi. But the INTP doesn't have a goal. He's spending his time doing internal code to explain some of the patterns pi is making to create other strains of it for the sake of it. Even if he knows it's a system that can handle an infinite number of systems he does it because it satisfies his desire to make systems.


I'm not sure this is a valid example of a pi person's behavior. That is because pi is thought to be random. No INTP would go after finding a system when none exists. Instead they would be interested in proving there is no system. I don't know how an INTJ would address this.





triphazex said:


> INTP's do care about the situation, but they don't turn Ti into Te unless they're stressed out. They won't be stressed out if they're happy making systems in their heads. There will be situations that call for them to explain what's going on but instead of getting motivated to go deeper by using other functions, they'll retreat to their heads to get caught up in a more intellectually stimulating meaningless system full of endless other systems like that type of system again. That's their goal, right? They're more likely to do that than use their knowledge for anything more than that.


I would want to rephrase that. Once an INTP makes a system if they write it down, it becomes Te. That's like an INTJ. The INTP though may go on to elaborate rather than stop there. It's like this: Ne input, Ti thinking, Te output, back to Ne-Ti. To the INTP, writing down Te-Se is a chore. When the thinking is done they want to go on to something else. Reality can stop them because INTJ types want results.





triphazex said:


> I don't know what you mean about organizations that use organisms, pets in the office, or biotech? I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning the bell curve either. What do you mean by extremes and best results? You need to explain that group of the paragraph some more.


I'll have to rephrase that as I don't recall what I was talking about. Organisms are harder to look for causes and effects because their organizations are complex. I can imagine an INTJ jumping to too fast conclusions about causes and effects. An INTP might want to look more carefully at extreme situations because they can give clues as to how things really work underneath. An INTJ may discard or ignore that data simply because they are rare and extreme. An INTP wants to explain everything. An INTJ wants to work with everything so it can be used.

This certainly fits me, an INTP. I'm writing an essay for almost a year now and keep wanting to add and refine it. It never gets done, lol. If I don't get it done it will be worthless to others.





triphazex said:


> That seems like Ni Te over Ti Ne to me because pi still has ways of explaining it to be made. Do you think this specific example can be a metaphor for other things in life? Also, do you think my explanation of the INTP actually sounds more like the INTJ?


I don't know. Did I say enough above to answer that?





triphazex said:


> Going over this post, I think a line should be drawn with the INTP. A guy who does literally nothing all day but spends time in his head thinking about stuff no one wants to understand ultimately for the sake of it v.s a cynical megalomaniac. INTJ-Pure is more intelligent than INTP-Pure. In my opinion, I can imagine an INTP with some INTJ tendencies using another personality theory like the enneagram as an example to outshine an INTJ with INTP tendencies. I still side with the INTJ with INTP tendencies though, like Elon Musk. I'm mainly fighting over the pure versions though, they have the most, obvious, extreme, and understandable traits.


Perhaps INTx's pure are rare. It's more that an INTP likes to think for its own sake but is trapped in reality; an INTJ likes to fulfill their vision to get results but has to think anyway to get there. There is an overlap. Both like to think and if they work together they get the best results over time. Think of the theoretical physicist and the experimental physicist. They damn well need each other.





triphazex said:


> Basically, I think it comes down to whether someone thinks intellect with a purpose matters more than intellect by itself when defining actual intellect.


There is a language bias here. Intellect with a purpose needs an intellect. An intellect by itself needs a purpose. Think of an artist, musician, politician versus a physicist or someone else in the hard sciences. Which is smarter? Answer: it depends on what they are up to and what they can do.


.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> The MBTI separates i from e. That means S & N, T & F may be taking and sending from the inner "world" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying the INTP doesn't do much while the INTJ does, that could be true in their purest form. Yet if the INTP does zero while the INTJ does it either right *or* wrong, I would think their intelligence averages out the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this is a valid example of a pi person's behavior. That is because pi is thought to be random. No INTP would go after finding a system when none exists. Instead they would be interested in proving there is no system. I don't know how an INTJ would address this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would want to rephrase that. Once an INTP makes a system if they write it down, it becomes Te. That's like an INTJ. The INTP though may go on to elaborate rather than stop there. It's like this: Ne input, Ti thinking, Te output, back to Ne-Ti. To the INTP, writing down Te-Se is a chore. When the thinking is done they want to go on to something else. Reality can stop them because INTJ types want results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to rephrase that as I don't recall what I was talking about. Organisms are harder to look for causes and effects because their organizations are complex. I can imagine an INTJ jumping to too fast conclusions about causes and effects. An INTP might want to look more carefully at extreme situations because they can give clues as to how things really work underneath. An INTJ may discard or ignore that data simply because they are rare and extreme. An INTP wants to explain everything. An INTJ wants to work with everything so it can be used.
> 
> This certainly fits me, an INTP. I'm writing an essay for almost a year now and keep wanting to add and refine it. It never gets done, lol. If I don't get it done it will be worthless to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Did I say enough above to answer that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps INTx's pure are rare. It's more that an INTP likes to think for its own sake but is trapped in reality; an INTJ likes to fulfill their vision to get results but has to think any way to get there. There is an overlap. Both like to think and if they work together they get the best results over time. Think of the theoretical physicist and the experimental physicist. They damn well need each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a language bias here. Intellect with a purpose needs an intellect. An intellect by itself needs a purpose. Think of an artist, musician, politician versus a physicist or someone else in the hard sciences. Which is smarter? Answer: it depends on what they are up to and what they can do.
> 
> 
> .


The dichotomies of the MBTI doesn't have to do with sending or receiving information except for explicitly the P/J dichotomy. I/E decides whether someone reacts to everything or decides to look over whatever it is to conclude later. S/N decides whether someone prefers using new information or old information. T/F decides whether someone is more comfortable being exact or inexact. Then there's P/J which decides whether someone prefers giving or getting information.

You're saying goals don't matter. It doesn't matter if the intellect is ever used or understood. It can exist with no effect on the real world. If an INTP decides to do the nested-systems controversy I've mentioned before they're still the smartest because they can create and remember any type of information and do the best at it. All the binary locked in their heads that can so easily be translated into important applications by giving certain bytes consistent identifiers won't ever even happen; after all that, they'll still be considered the most intelligent.
In my opinion, this extreme doesn't seem right cause I'd say they're starting to sound like an INFP but even worse. Due to the INTP's desire to deal with their systems, they can't just leave their heads whenever they feel like it because systems need to be finished, unlike noise. At the end of it all, doing nothing and failing is the same thing as being wrong and failing. Everything exists to a degree.

You can make an infinite number of systems to explain pi's random behavior as long as you're currently dealing with a range. Since it's infinite there is no system to define the sum of it. Proving pi has no system to define it would be a Ni goal. INTP's have Ti over Ne which means they don't care about the goal, they care about the process. They will prove pi has no system but that isn't the point. Proving or disproving the nested system they're working on's the point because if you go too far out of the nests you'll enter the real world where you need to use other functions.
Getting out of their loop requires Ni or Te which is in their stressed stack-half. They won't want to use those functions because their system-making behavior counterintuitively keeps them on top of their normal stack. I think this accurately describes procrastination. They don't really know what they're working on so they branch off into other thoughts. Everything's related in some way but it might not be obvious. They know somewhere in their system's what others are looking for but finding that clump of code and confidently making sure it's everything they will ever expect's the hard part (Te, Ni). 
Also, I think the INTP would only call himself a "pi person" to ease communication with others. An INTP wouldn't actually desire to prove pi has no system if pi proves to hold an infinite number of systems that can be created to explain it as I've mentioned earlier. Every system to explain pi is a system to explain reality but without the use of the inferior functions. Because pi is so abstract it has no connection to reality. They are bound by it and cannot escape it unless they're significantly pressured.

I think pi is a placeholder for any irrational equation. The world is at least seemingly full of irrational equations. Maybe I should have said they're trying to figure out irrational equations. That's a little bit more fundamental than pi in my opinion.
I gave my opinion on how the INTJ would address solving pi. I suppose there's nothing else to say about them in this situation.

When an INTP does anything in the world it may be seen as Te but it's actually Ne. Ti, Ne is a good combination for having Te, not the best one though. Their real Te is in their inferior functions and before they do that they'll panic with Fe. Socionics differs but I don't think we're talking about that. I don't see what an INTP would enjoy that's not thinking and talking about the useless stuff they've thought of that no one understands. Once they're done with one of their systems they move on to the next one it implies.

Humans are the pinnacle of evolution thus far so they'd naturally be the most complex to understand. Humans branch from organisms and organisms branch from chemicals. The roots do start out simple and become more emergent if that's what you mean.
ENTJ's, not INTJ's, are the type to jump too fast to conclusions. INTJ's can do that too because of their Fi but if their divine line of reasoning needs them to be patient like the INTP are for understanding their systems they can be patient like them without an exception. INTJ's plan everything. They consider all the variables, all the options, everything before they make a decision just like the INTP. The problem with the INTP's that if they think it's bad to keep on thinking about the issue due to figuring out the problem's reaching diminishing returns for a solution they'll keep on thinking about it anyway unlike the INTJ cause they're concerned with the validity of an equation, not the probability. 
INTJ's do reach their goals before understanding the exactitude of the data. If something rare and extreme could happen to their goals they would factor in the data into the percentage of their goal failing. Their percentage of their goal failing is equivalent to how much they value their goal. Even if it looks like INTJ's may have lost a lot they never actually lose because they always know what they're getting themselves into causing them to always be as emotionally prepared as the likelihood of them failing. Unlike the INTP that likelihood correctly determines the amount of motivation needed for a goal. The INTJ considers everything as a factor in completing a goal, the INTP doesn't consider their thoughts as one until they're greatly pressured. The INTJ will need to explain reality in order to achieve their goals. The INTP doesn't need to do anything to make systems in their head, irrational equations.

We seem to agree on the next few posts but then you talk about a language bias. I think we still agree here it's just that my Pure-INTP, only uses the intellect to run away from pain when procrastination obviously caught up to them. That due to stress because that's the only time the other functions are ever used. Would you say the intellect would be fully translated if it were only used in situations like that, if at all?
The other people you've mentioned have a personality to get good at those things. The ISFP's are usually good at art, adventuring, and photography. ISTP's are known to be musicians. All E's are pretty good at politics. ISTJ's can actually be pretty good at all of it since they can have the patience level of an Intp and Intj. They have the worst ideas though, they can innovate on what's been done but they're supposed to be the worst inventors cause they hate the word "new" more than anyone.
Intelligence, Just like artistic capability, is just another personality trait that we're trying to define. You could argue intelligence would boost the stats of artistic capability but since we're only working with functions it must be put in a class of its own. We're trying to argue what's that main brainy feature the INTX's have that the other types don't and which one of the two's the best at it. I'd say it's advanced reasoning because the ISTJ being known for their unmatched exactitude, series of attempts, and steel-trap-memory, have the willingness to never give up and memorize everything. They show it off in the most polite and formal way, leading people to call them more intelligent than both the INTP and the INTJ in any contest even though they're just unhealthily smart. 

I need to know how do you quote what I say, I can't find how on google.


----------



## HAL

I don't understand why INTPs are winning this poll.

Sure, we're all brainboxes, but so are INTJs. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Also these days I'm quite comfortably into the trough of the Dunning-Kruger chart (below) so I'll happily accept that tons of people are way smarter than I am.


----------



## B3LIAL

Smart =/= Intelligent. There are many dumb intelligent people out there.


----------



## B3LIAL

HAL said:


> I don't understand why INTPs are winning this poll.
> 
> Sure, we're all brainboxes, but so are INTJs. That's pretty much all there is to it.
> 
> Also these days I'm quite comfortably into the trough of the Dunning-Kruger chart (below) so I'll happily accept that tons of people are way smarter than I am.
> 
> View attachment 872679


Just wow at that....


----------



## HAL

B3LIAL said:


> Just wow at that....


Wow at what?


----------



## B3LIAL

HAL said:


> Wow at what?


The graph. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> The MBTI separates i from e. That means S & N, T & F may be taking and sending from the inner "world" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are saying the INTP doesn't do much while the INTJ does, that could be true in their purest form. Yet if the INTP does zero while the INTJ does it either right *or* wrong, I would think their intelligence averages out the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this is a valid example of a pi person's behavior. That is because pi is thought to be random. No INTP would go after finding a system when none exists. Instead they would be interested in proving there is no system. I don't know how an INTJ would address this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would want to rephrase that. Once an INTP makes a system if they write it down, it becomes Te. That's like an INTJ. The INTP though may go on to elaborate rather than stop there. It's like this: Ne input, Ti thinking, Te output, back to Ne-Ti. To the INTP, writing down Te-Se is a chore. When the thinking is done they want to go on to something else. Reality can stop them because INTJ types want results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have to rephrase that as I don't recall what I was talking about. Organisms are harder to look for causes and effects because their organizations are complex. I can imagine an INTJ jumping to too fast conclusions about causes and effects. An INTP might want to look more carefully at extreme situations because they can give clues as to how things really work underneath. An INTJ may discard or ignore that data simply because they are rare and extreme. An INTP wants to explain everything. An INTJ wants to work with everything so it can be used.
> 
> This certainly fits me, an INTP. I'm writing an essay for almost a year now and keep wanting to add and refine it. It never gets done, lol. If I don't get it done it will be worthless to others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Did I say enough above to answer that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps INTx's pure are rare. It's more that an INTP likes to think for its own sake but is trapped in reality; an INTJ likes to fulfill their vision to get results but has to think anyway to get there. There is an overlap. Both like to think and if they work together they get the best results over time. Think of the theoretical physicist and the experimental physicist. They damn well need each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a language bias here. Intellect with a purpose needs an intellect. An intellect by itself needs a purpose. Think of an artist, musician, politician versus a physicist or someone else in the hard sciences. Which is smarter? Answer: it depends on what they are up to and what they can do.
> 
> 
> .


I'm trying to get on the same page. I wan't to know where you disagree so I can see why you think the INTP's more intelligent and validate your version of intelligence against what I think it really is if they're any different. I didn't mean to sound so close ended if that's what you thought I was trying to do. I'm just narrowing down on what I'm saying in order for you to understand so I can figure out where I disagree or where my faulty semantics are. So far my version of an INTP seems less intelligent than a ESFJ because INTP's seem to be the definition of procrastination in their purest form, even worse than an INFP. You said in one post that intelligence needs to be proven. They will certainly not prove themselves due to their procrastination. They only start moving when they can't wait another second. They will most certainly get distracted for that second and fail to prove themselves. I hope you respond to my previous post.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> I need to know how do you quote what I say, I can't find how on google.


It's not a function of google. Do you see the "Reply, Quote, Like" at the bottom? (You are not the only one. I had to ask how to do it too.) Highlight what you want. Click on reply. What you highlighted appears below. Repeat for more. If that doesn't work, ask again. It makes should I want to reply, easier.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> The dichotomies of the MBTI doesn't have to do with sending or receiving information except for explicitly the P/J dichotomy. I/E decides whether someone reacts to everything or decides to look over whatever it is to conclude later. S/N decides whether someone prefers using new information or old information. T/F decides whether someone is more comfortable being exact or inexact. Then there's P/J which decides whether someone prefers giving or getting information.


Those sound like good dichotomies to explore. You must understand another person may want to explore those more than I do. At present I regard them as loose suggestions, not rigid laws.





triphazex said:


> You're saying goals don't matter. It doesn't matter if the intellect is ever used or understood. It can exist with no effect on the real world. If an INTP decides to do the nested-systems controversy I've mentioned before they're still the smartest because they can create and remember any type of information and do the best at it. All the binary locked in their heads that can so easily be translated into important applications by giving certain bytes consistent identifiers won't ever even happen; after all that, they'll still be considered the most intelligent.
> In my opinion, this extreme doesn't seem right cause I'd say they're starting to sound like an INFP but even worse. Due to the INTP's desire to deal with their systems, they can't just leave their heads whenever they feel like it because systems need to be finished, unlike noise. At the end of it all, doing nothing and failing is the same thing as being wrong and failing. Everything exists to a degree.


Goals are guides. For some getting there takes priority over traveling. There is a saying, "The chase not the quarry is man's goal." I give up on asking "who is the smartest" unless "smart" is defined. It can be desirable to build a system. If it looks good, it's built. If it's hard to complete, maybe it's best to leave it alone and come back later with more inspiration.






triphazex said:


> You can make an infinite number of systems to explain pi's random behavior as long as you're currently dealing with a range. Since it's infinite there is no system to define the sum of it. Proving pi has no system to define it would be a Ni goal.


One must be careful when dealing with the infinite. Don't use finite tools for that. There are such tools but you have to know some mathematics. I have a B.S. in math.





triphazex said:


> I gave my opinion on how the INTJ would address solving pi. I suppose there's nothing else to say about them in this situation.


I don't know any INTJs working on math issues. The way you speak of pi shows you need to learn more about pi. Try google. That may be off topic as to INTPs vs INTJs though.





triphazex said:


> When an INTP does anything in the world it may be seen as Te but it's actually Ne.


That caught my attention. Should an INTP conclude something and make a note of it, what is that? Se? If they use it, it is Te. Does that make sense?





triphazex said:


> The INTP doesn't need to do anything to make systems in their head, irrational equations.


I'm afraid just because an INTP likes to think doesn't mean they can do without the other functions. To aim to be a whole person, one must use all the function even if unpleasant. An INTP may not be fond of Te or Se, but they need them to do something productive with Ti. Do not think aloneness. Learn from an INTJ if necessary. Let both work together.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> Those sound like good dichotomies to explore. You must understand another person may want to explore those more than I do. At present I regard them as loose suggestions, not rigid laws.


 That seems unlikely for calling yourself an INTP. These functions are the foundation of not only the MBTI but the 16 types model. They are more important than the name of the types and any stereotype. They are in fact, the most important subject in the model. They are anything but loose. If a function doesn't work, they switch to another function. You have to think of it as a simulation ran through code.
If the functions are only suggestions what other personality theory are people using at that moment? You could say they work like an A.I but that only raises the question of which MBTI is most similar to the perfect A.I. The perfect A.I is, of course, the most intelligent. It'd be assumed it can switch it's type instantly based off the situation to deny the question but actually that action just raises another one. Which type is it most likely to be?
To be ESFJ or ESTP because it want's to be the most popular type? Does it want to be rich? Also, before that, what's the A.I even driven by? It has to be happiness. What defines happiness? This question will fade into things we don't know such as how electrons make the emergent qualities life's known for in certain chemical combinations. Lines can be made to still have a brilliant mock up. This is what creates philosophy, psychology, then all our less important simplifications.
I'm making the code in my head to implement in an IDE. I think of code as mathematics but with the capabilities of translating the variables into substantially easier to process stimuli such as the visual-sense, auditory-sense, and the time-sense. That's how I think anything should be thought of. You have a BA in math? Have you ever tried any programming? I have. I plan to spend my life in this general direction with a sense of meaning so I'm willing to try understanding whatever concept you throw at me. If you don't stick to any truth I can't argue against you.

Let me try to explain what I define as intelligence. The ability to be happier than everyone else. Of course no one is equal due to their nurture. But in general which type would be happier? Options like the ESFJ and ESFP would actually become relevant in deciding the most intelligent due to their casual mental state. The problem's the capability of using science to modify that value. Everyone has the capability of using drugs and the types I've deemed naturally happy, the ESFJ, and ESFP, will benefit the most from it. Drugs can't compare to immortality though.
Immortality will achieve all the happiness one's capable off. Dying means you're incapable of becoming happier. No one can truly know if anyone actually dies but it's a principle of nature to treat indifference with the worst intentions when looking for anything, happiness. The universe will become more entropic and everything you search for will gradually disappear until there's nothing. Happiness is attached to something so it will go too.
By dying, hypothetically, the universe will do a coin-flip to decide if it should reset or turn of it's system to destroy your time vector, not to mention all the other pain you could unwillingly go through. The universes Indifference represents our lack of knowledge on where we will go when these bodies die. I know this idea isn't well-understood by many so you can ask me more about it if you want. I've had about a days long discussion with an ENTP in discord about this immortality thing and appeared to come out looking like an INTP. Just thought I'd say that.
The question's what type is most likely to become immortal in a simulation? This question has many factors like the nurture and how this theory is implemented but both the INTP and INTJ still seem to compete however you draw the lines. They're the only ones futuristic enough to qualify. Maybe I just need to program it myself and tell the world which types are smarter based off the most accurate way of programing the system since there are inaccurate ways of doing so I expect everyone also uses. What type do you think would be most likely to succeed at this.

How does you're version of intelligence differ from this? IQ? If so I told you it's INTJ still because they have the best perceiving function on top, Ni. Perceiving functions are concerned with taking information from the world. They're the best learners. How does that not have to do with IQ? I also now understand that you don't know enough about the functions as much as you want which is why I think no one here on this poll actually knows anything so this could of gone either way.



BigApplePi said:


> Goals are guides. For some getting there takes priority over traveling. There is a saying, "The chase not the quarry is man's goal." I give up on asking "who is the smartest" unless "smart" is defined. It can be desirable to build a system. If it looks good, it's built. If it's hard to complete, maybe it's best to leave it alone and come back later with more inspiration.


 You're reiterating what you've said before and not answering my question. You seem to completely agree with the first half of the paragraph. I find that very interesting. A questions difficulty and importance may not be correlated, they may not even be close. The title of the most intelligent in reality would go to those answering the most important questions.

Answers that are made by arranging questions to solve, Ni, is extremely important to get out of the Pi-loop. You could program a system to run through every number of pi and cause it too make every system permutation from the numbers it currently has too predict the next number of pi. I think I may be just rephrasing deep-learning, it's just doing it on pi. INTP's don't deep learn real life because their function stack always pushes them to deep learn things that exist isolated in their heads. INTP's are generally mental masochists; they live by, all pain, no gain.
I've made possible definitions for our "smart" in my previous body. You think it's the ability to make systems? That wording's a clear bias towards the INTP's, at least explain yourself there. Systems have nothing to do with looking good. Either the system is built with a name, or it's not. You must explain what you mean by the ability to make systems define Intelligence. If that we're the case the poll would fight between INTP and ISTP or there would be an extreme chance there wouldn't even be one cause what you said simply means who has Ti at front.
What you said with coming back later for a system makes sense besides the word choice "inspiration". You need to explain what you mean by that because it's sounding like you make systems primarily based off of feelings. I understand that something may show you an algorithm you could use to make that one system look good but what defines a good look? How it fits with another system, or Fe? It'd primarily be based off another system and then go to Fe. INTP's wouldn't rely on Fe to make something look good, to complete a system, as you supposedly say every systems purpose is for.

Feelings are good to define a goal because they have the time to be rationalized into values. They shouldn't measure the validity of the current system because the meaning of the system will change in order to appease the mood. Any system made to appease a mood becomes subjective so it has to be recreated many more times just because the INTP consistently doesn't want to make the system right, the valued system right, the first time unlike the INTJ. The meaningless time-wasting the INTP performs makes them less intelligent than the INTJ.



BigApplePi said:


> One must be careful when dealing with the infinite. Don't use finite tools for that. There are such tools but you have to know some mathematics. I have a B.S. in math.


Finite tools to measure the infinite can be used with a good purpose, mainly noise, R.N.G, and L.O.D algorithms. I've delved into these with my own personal coding projects. Anyway, whether I cared or not about math you sound like you're trying to appeal to your authority on mathematics in order to win this argument. That would be a logical fallacy; meaning, I'd actually win if you'd give up by using that point. Tell me what you don't understand in my explanation instead. Make sure to acknowledge my info through everything I've said on this matter, feel free to pick apart my words.



BigApplePi said:


> I don't know any INTJs working on math issues. The way you speak of pi shows you need to learn more about pi. Try google. That may be off topic as to INTPs vs INTJs though.


INTJ's most certainly deal with math issues. We're arguing that INTJ's are better than INTP's in math issues. Explain why you don't think they do. As I said in this post you need to explain what you don't understand about my irrational number controversy cause you won't win with a fallacy. You really think I've never even looked up pi on google and that I just remember it's a number that doesn't make sense so I can use it in my argument? 😁 Eek, just yeesh.



BigApplePi said:


> That caught my attention. Should an INTP conclude something and make a note of it, what is that? Se? If they use it, it is Te. Does that make sense?


What matters is the functions they're trying to use as I've said before. I think It might be beneficial to start quoting myself every time I have to give an answer I've done before just to show that it seems you aren't taking into account anything I'm saying through a system. Any extroverted function is concerned with showing itself immediately or some time soon through the world. That doesn't mean it has to be through the external world. INTP's are more likely to create mental notes often due to their lack of Se. This SJ Society values certainty so you have to take that in account when understanding their use of Se and Te. Functions can appear to be other functions. Ti + Ne can look Te. Fi + Ne can look Fe. Ti + Ne can also look Fe if people don't think there's a system. Things and people have messages that get scrambled through the methods they must go through in reality. INTP's are more likely to pose question than answers. They hate clear-cut answers cause they're biased towards everything being a subject of something else.




BigApplePi said:


> I'm afraid just because an INTP likes to think doesn't mean they can do without the other functions. To aim to be a whole person, one must use all the function even if unpleasant. An INTP may not be fond of Te or Se, but they need them to do something productive with Ti. Do not think aloneness. Learn from an INTJ if necessary. Let both work together.


 None of the 16 types are whole people; they are the 16 divisions of a whole person. I'm talking about the Purest versions of the 16 types. What other version would we be voting for? 88% INTP vs 88% INTJ? Are we all subconsciously supposed to realize and agree with that? That sounds like this metric would've been decided by feelings. This doesn't sound like unbiased math. Seriously, what are the values and what do they fade into? 
The first 2 functions define the type so the INTP is stuck in Ti-Ne until they're pressured. The INTJ needs to use the other functions for Ni-Te to work. The INTP's only use the other functions when their thinking time is being threatened. I've explained why many times, don't forget to take into account everything I've said about their situation before asking why I think that. In order for one of us to win there must be an axiom we use that can be extruded to a length so extreme it will no longer make sense.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> Those sound like good dichotomies to explore. You must understand another person may want to explore those more than I do. At present I regard them as loose suggestions, not rigid laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goals are guides. For some getting there takes priority over traveling. There is a saying, "The chase not the quarry is man's goal." I give up on asking "who is the smartest" unless "smart" is defined. It can be desirable to build a system. If it looks good, it's built. If it's hard to complete, maybe it's best to leave it alone and come back later with more inspiration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One must be careful when dealing with the infinite. Don't use finite tools for that. There are such tools but you have to know some mathematics. I have a B.S. in math.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know any INTJs working on math issues. The way you speak of pi shows you need to learn more about pi. Try google. That may be off topic as to INTPs vs INTJs though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That caught my attention. Should an INTP conclude something and make a note of it, what is that? Se? If they use it, it is Te. Does that make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid just because an INTP likes to think doesn't mean they can do without the other functions. To aim to be a whole person, one must use all the function even if unpleasant. An INTP may not be fond of Te or Se, but they need them to do something productive with Ti. Do not think aloneness. Learn from an INTJ if necessary. Let both work together.


Liking my comment first gives me a mixed message. Are you trying to end the conversation by doing this? I don't wan't a like. I just want to know where we actually disagree by your acknowledgment of the extremities I've proposed or for you to find ones in mine I can't disagree with that everyone else can disagree with. I've commented first then liked your message to tell you my message is ready for a review. I'd hate to stop here, after all this time, without a conclusion. I know I sound a bit pushy but it's true. Where else can I even go to discuss this? The only other place I know is discord. Do you think the casual and near real-time conversations discord is made for can make a valid decision in this? Do you understand the place where all my points are coming from? Can you validate it?


----------



## BigApplePi

I had the message below in the out box but had to do something else. I didn't send it out so I could reread it. Got your follow on message.



triphazex said:


> That seems unlikely for calling yourself an INTP. These functions are the foundation of not only the MBTI but the 16 types model. They are more important than the name of the types and any stereotype. They are in fact, the most important subject in the model. They are anything but loose. If a function doesn't work, they switch to another function. You have to think of it as a simulation ran through code.


Calling myself an INTP is tentative. Do you have another name you'd like to try? My position on the eight cognitive functions is that they are not rigid boxes into which one functions, but instead are functions with flexible boundaries over time. One may center on specific functions but they bleed into adjacent functions.




triphazex said:


> To be ESFJ or ESTP because it want's to be the most popular type? Does it want to be rich? Also, before that, what's the A.I even driven by? It has to be happiness. What defines happiness? This question will fade into things we don't know such as how electrons make the emergent qualities life's known for in certain chemical combinations. Lines can be made to still have a brilliant mock up. This is what creates philosophy, psychology, then all our less important simplifications.
> I'm making the code in my head to implement in an IDE. I think of code as mathematics but with the capabilities of translating the variables into substantially easier to process stimuli such as the visual-sense, auditory-sense, and the time-sense. That's how I think anything should be thought of.


Those are ideas. If you collect enough of them hopefully they will coalesce into something of larger meaning.




triphazex said:


> Have you ever tried any programming? I have. I plan to spend my life in this general direction with a sense of meaning so I'm willing to try understanding whatever concept you throw at me. If you don't stick to any truth I can't argue against you.


I programmed for 15+ years before retirement. I prefer to collect knowledge rather than argue. I don't want to defeat existing knowledge ... only expand on it.




triphazex said:


> the ESFJ, and ESFP, will benefit the most from it. Drugs can't compare to immortality though.


Drugs? What drugs? Medical or recreational? Are you taking them? I don't believe in drugs particularly.




triphazex said:


> By dying, hypothetically, the universe will do a coin-flip to decide if it should reset or turn of it's system to destroy your time vector, not to mention all the other pain you could unwillingly go through. The universes Indifference represents our lack of knowledge on where we will go when these bodies die. I know this idea isn't well-understood by many so you can ask me more about it if you want. I've had about a days long discussion with an ENTP in discord about this immortality thing and appeared to come out looking like an INTP. Just thought I'd say that.
> The question's what type is most likely to become immortal in a simulation? This question has many factors like the nurture and how this theory is implemented but both the INTP and INTJ still seem to compete however you draw the lines. They're the only ones futuristic enough to qualify. Maybe I just need to program it myself and tell the world which types are smarter based off the most accurate way of programing the system since there are inaccurate ways of doing so I expect everyone also uses. What type do you think would be most likely to succeed at this.


You've mentioned a lot of topics. Can you try to read about them? There are threads in this forum PerC that talk about them. Try there.




triphazex said:


> How does you're version of intelligence differ from this? IQ? If so I told you it's INTJ still because they have the best perceiving function on top, Ni. Perceiving functions are concerned with taking information from the world. They're the best learners. How does that not have to do with IQ? I also now understand that you don't know enough about the functions as much as you want which is why I think no one here on this poll actually knows anything so this could of gone either way.


Ni is perceiving but it's perceiving from one's own mind. It could be inaccurate. If intelligence is a kind of successful application, it could be outer world application or inner self preparation. Those two are like comparing apples and oranges. Therefore I'm not going to saying INTP or INTJ or any other personality is more intelligence just because of their type.





triphazex said:


> INTP's are generally mental masochists; they live by, all pain, no gain.


You are talking pure INTP. Who is pure, except when starting out in life? You have lots of ideas. Good for you. My advice is to keep at it but pull them together as time goes on. Think developing some Te. Continue to speculate on what might be true, adding knowledge as you go along.

I did that in the beginning but I'm older now, hopefully more mature with more active functions. Talk to some INTJs. They can help differently from me. They have their intelligence and you have yours. Each is entitled.
=====================================







triphazex said:


> Liking my comment first gives me a mixed message.


Yeah. That is a mixed message. I meant I like that you sent the message but it was so long I didn't have a quick reply. This message is shorter.




triphazex said:


> I just want to know where we actually disagree ...


I don't disagree with anything particularly. 



triphazex said:


> Where else can I even go to discuss this? The only other place I know is discord.


What is discord? As far as discussion goes, I see a hundred topics. (That's me.) If you pick one or two I'll respond to that, but not a hundred ... 98 will go to the bottom of the queue. I think you have a lot on your mind. So do I. That doesn't make me very smart.




triphazex said:


> Do you understand the place where all my points are coming from?


That's a good question. No I don't.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> I had the message below in the out box but had to do something else. I didn't send it out so I could reread it. Got your follow on message.


You could've still unliked my message to not confuse me.



BigApplePi said:


> Calling myself an INTP is tentative. Do you have another name you'd like to try? My position on the eight cognitive functions is that they are not rigid boxes into which one functions, but instead are functions with flexible boundaries over time. One may center on specific functions but they bleed into adjacent functions.


 INFP cause you keep on saying I don't know what I'm saying without explaining why you think that. The best example's how you talk about your 15+ years of programming without proving it by debunking me in your posts. You never do an extreme extrusion of anything you don't agree with concerning what I say. You also don't mention the topics you get your information from unlike me. If I didn't mention the information with the topic you wouldn't know where to check my evidence and because of that you wouldn't know how to check it either. You're also quite broad. You choose to be short and vague which both are opposites of INTP traits.
What your saying about the functions blending into each other sounds like the Socionics block model. You could say people don't sense the Ti then the Ne as individual functions but based off of it's effect through the block and the blocks position in the stack. That makes sense. Based on that system Ne-Si doesn't blend into each other though. Because it doesn't blend you could still call it an effect. You also said the functions change over time? That's an unpopular opinion. Maybe through unpleasant training or trauma. I'd say the personality type can change through infantry but after that it's unlikely due to brain plasticity. If it does happen it will be bad for the persons mental health.
Functions are there to show what one has a natural affinity for ranging to the ones they don't. You can make many variations of this but you can't get rid of it because it's what makes the concept work. You could argue after someone's stressed out enough they can change types for that moment because there is a theory that explains it. The INTP can turn ENTJ because of their demon functions. In Socionics they turn ISFP when they use their super demon due to extreme stress. Being stressed can't mean it's your natural state. I need to know how you define flexible functions, what theory your using, in order to decide whether your version makes sense. And if so, it will be used to decide the fight between the two types.



BigApplePi said:


> Those are ideas. If you collect enough of them hopefully they will coalesce into something of larger meaning.


A lot of what I said was pretty factual. The meaning of life being happiness, how we don't know how electrons make the emergent qualities of life, and how we make schools of thought to explain the intelect. The only actual ideas were choosing the A.I's goal to become popular to show how short term others think the goal of happiness is. I could've just ignored it but you'd most likely say happiness can mean to have short term desires like taking a stroll in the park. I wanted you to know that it is in fact purely based of the happiness chemicals. As for "happiness-chemicals", people say it's dopamine while there's people who also enjoy serotonin. There's hormones, then there's the chemicals that that we don't know about due to the emergent properties electrons do to bonds. I said the A.I could want something like the short term pleasures mentioned such as popularity to show that it's based off of that reasoning. My example was given to show that my version is smarter than any version you'd propose.



BigApplePi said:


> I programmed for 15+ years before retirement. I prefer to collect knowledge rather than argue. I don't want to defeat existing knowledge ... only expand on it.


Ok, the point's to be specific please. Don't just say you know more than me cause you worked a lot of years at this company and expect to win by defualt because of it. that's not how you solve anyones problem. The evidence proves the title. The title doesn't prove the evidence. What you define as evidence's most likely not even evidence to disprove an argument. Also, I'll never know if I'm wrong unless you tell me the evidence.



BigApplePi said:


> Drugs? What drugs? Medical or recreational? Are you taking them? I don't believe in drugs particularly.


Drugs are generally known for trading ones lifespan for the pleasure one may have with that time. If they had no downsides, If they would simply just make us feel good, everyone'd be taking them. Through science it ought to happen one day. It isn't the most important matter though as I've said. Why feel good and die if you could feel good forever. That's my point. Also, I'm not taking them. I just said the lifespan is more important. Once that's figured out drugs can be taken. Not using drugs do too the effect it may have on sentience is a matter of debate though. Sentience is inherently unprovable so what I'm saying's still most likely our future of immortals case.



BigApplePi said:


> You've mentioned a lot of topics. Can you try to read about them? There are threads in this forum PerC that talk about them. Try there.


Can I try to read into the topics? Are you saying I don't know enough about them or you want me to explain them more? Anything you say that says I don't know what I'm talking about needs evidence to prove I'm wrong. What does PerC mean, what topics have you spotted out of what I've been saying, and what threads are you mentioning for them? Even if you mention the topics there needs to be a specific matter you think I've left unresolved in order for you to link me to them. I believe every topic can be explained simply so there wouldn't even be a reason to redirect me. If you knew there was a problem for a topic you'd also be able to say what that problem is.



BigApplePi said:


> Ni is perceiving but it's perceiving from one's own mind. It could be inaccurate. If intelligence is a kind of successful application, it could be outer world application or inner self preparation. Those two are like comparing apples and oranges. Therefore I'm not going to saying INTP or INTJ or any other personality is more intelligence just because of their type.


 As I said, it could of gone either way here because you can't decide if thought without action is still thought. You've said thought without action isn't thought before and now you're invalidating yourself. Unless you explain what you mean by outer world application and inner self preservation. I want to know why you think self preparation is equal to successful application. Right now self preparation is sounding more like permanent basic self preservation to me.
Some types are capable of so much but very few, like the ENTP's, actually do anything even once in their life to utilize their potential. They're known to be inventors like da Vinci but all they actually do is make puns all day. I tried having a long debate concerning ENTP's to be better than ENTJ's at any game and I got hit hard with anecdotes from an ENTJ with more than 10 ENTP friends. It's anecdotal though as I've said so take it as you will. It was a a YouTube video from "Love Who" on the most successful personality type. These guys are the extraverted INTP's so that makes them more likely to use their thoughts. They're not looking too good too me next to their J counterpart.
Do you not agree with my idea of the outer world application? You said my definition of intelligence being the likelihood of becoming immortal through scientific means was just an idea. How is it just an idea when the longer you live the more every stat you have increases. The permanent halt of growth is what it means to truly die. The INTP would move on from this idea because he can't design systems around it even if he knows it will cause him to make more systems like he wants in the end.
This seems like a better goal for an INTJ in my opinion. INTP's can't make their systems for the sake of another system unless it was due to a random encounter. They can create systems in systems it's just that they, themselves, have no pattern for creating systems. How hard do you think it would be for an INTP to completely invalidate their own functions through a system to the point that they live their life as another type? Are they still INTP?



BigApplePi said:


> You are talking pure INTP. Who is pure, except when starting out in life? You have lots of ideas. Good for you. My advice is to keep at it but pull them together as time goes on. Think developing some Te. Continue to speculate on what might be true, adding knowledge as you go along.
> 
> I did that in the beginning but I'm older now, hopefully more mature with more active functions. Talk to some INTJs. They can help differently from me. They have their intelligence and you have yours. Each is entitled.


I'm talking about pure INTP's, no exceptions. why wouldn't they be INTP when starting out in life. I'm not sure I understand where you're getting at there. I've talked about how a child's brain is malleable but I don't think it's a factor to bring up. You seem to be saying that the INTP's ideas don't matter until later in life when the ideas are pulled together so tightly that they end up looking like Te. That's true. I'm arguing INTJ's can do that quicker not because they're more impatient to know everything but because they have the intuition to know what's important and they have the patience to go back and fill in the gaps.



BigApplePi said:


> Yeah. That is a mixed message. I meant I like that you sent the message but it was so long I didn't have a quick reply. This message is shorter.


I was saying I wanted you to respond then to give me a like so I know you aren't just dropping the conversation. I work that way because I edit my posts.



BigApplePi said:


> I don't disagree with anything particularly.


You have to if you want to prove the INTP and the INTJ have balanced intelect.




BigApplePi said:


> What is discord? As far as discussion goes, I see a hundred topics. (That's me.) If you pick one or two I'll respond to that, but not a hundred ... 98 will go to the bottom of the queue. I think you have a lot on your mind. So do I. That doesn't make me very smart.


If you don't know what it is then it doesn't matter. You see a hundred topics? Can you try telling me 5 I've mentioned with a reason for it being a topic of discussion. If what's on your mind is due to the enviroment then it's a nature v.s nurture problem. It's a rule of science to silence noise from the external world when doing an expirement. If you're an INTP you ought to be smart if nurture isn't in the way. I don't actually understand what you mean by having a lot on ones mind. Are you just talking about life or being full of thoughts? Are you accepting that INTJ's are smarter because you realize your thought's have no direction?



BigApplePi said:


> That's a good question. No I don't.


Well that's because you're bad at Ni, advanced figure-it-out-ness. JK, you could've Ne'd it. Everything I say comes from the axiom "intelligence is the likelihood of becoming immortal". I don't want to have to explain that again but all my kooky ideas apparently stem from this idea and theres no way to get around having to explain this theory. I don't understand why people can't understand it the first time it's said. Especially when it's said so simply. I'm not sure if I'm now ranting. Based off that idea I've determined an INTP can't work towards that goal because that means they would have Ni. INTJ's may forget stuff because they're unfortunately bad at Ti and the worst at Si but what other type can stick to a goal to the end besides them, ISTJ? ISTJ's can't use Ni goals, they only do cultures goals. INFJ's are feelers so they're obviously worse than an INTJ at science. I've explained through all my points that INTJ's are basically just INTP's without their defect.


----------



## BigApplePi

Selective responses.


triphazex said:


> You could've still unliked my message to not confuse me.


Are you sure about *who* is responsible for your confusion?




triphazex said:


> INFP cause you keep on saying I don't know what I'm saying without explaining why you think that. The best example's how you talk about your 15+ years of programming without proving it by debunking me in your posts. You never do an extreme extrusion of anything you don't agree with concerning what I say. You also don't mention the topics you get your information from unlike me. If I didn't mention the information with the topic you wouldn't know where to check my evidence and because of that you wouldn't know how to check it either.


Those are quite some statements. I will keep them in mind. INFP = Fi Ne Si Te. What type are you? I'm not good at guessing, but I'd try ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si for you. You are extroverted because you *lead with Ne.*




triphazex said:


> You're also quite broad. You choose to be short and vague which both are opposites of INTP traits.


I didn't know that. How are those INTP traits? Don't forget INTPs lead with Ti and who knows what a leading Ti person is thinking? You think INTPs are long-winded?




triphazex said:


> What your saying about the functions blending into each other sounds like the Socionics block model. You could say people don't sense the Ti then the Ne as individual functions but based off of it's effect through the block and the blocks position in the stack. That makes sense. Based on that system Ne-Si doesn't blend into each other though. Because it doesn't blend you could still call it an effect. You also said the functions change over time? That's an unpopular opinion. Maybe through unpleasant training or trauma. I'd say the personality type can change through infantry but after that it's unlikely due to brain plasticity. If it does happen it will be bad for the persons mental health.


I would say over time, the functions can be developed, all eight. Lots of time. You still keep the earlier ones. I see you as making a lot of statements, all general. I tend to not want to make deductions from those because I don't believe they are general enough and carry too many exceptions. If you want to do that, that is okay with me but I don't have to reply to them. 

Agreed Ne-Si are different but are okay with me as they supply input to Ti.

BTW you talk Socionics a lot. I don't care to think of Socionics if I've yet to master the MBTI, lol.






triphazex said:


> A lot of what I said was pretty factual. The meaning of life being happiness, how we don't know how electrons make the emergent qualities of life, and how we make schools of thought to explain the intelect.


How do you define "happiness." I once defined it and never had to revise it. Want to see it? How do you bring up electrons in the same sentence? Are you trying to display another topic? I have an answer about connecting electrons to life. Want to hear about it?




triphazex said:


> Ok, the point's to be specific please. Don't just say you know more than me cause you worked a lot of years at this company and expect to win by defualt because of it. that's not how you solve anyones problem. The evidence proves the title. The title doesn't prove the evidence. What you define as evidence's most likely not even evidence to disprove an argument. Also, I'll never know if I'm wrong unless you tell me the evidence.


That is quite a paragraph. It makes a lot of assumptions. What has you thinking I will response to them all? Do you want me to see selective or respond to all? I don't have time. I tell myself to work on an essay I'm failing to write. It's on the nature and origin of consciousness.




triphazex said:


> Sentience is inherently unprovable


How so? Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Also one can look for evidence that another person is thinking.




triphazex said:


> As I said, it could of gone either way here because you can't decide if thought without action is still thought. You've said thought without action isn't thought before and now you're invalidating yourself. Unless you explain what you mean by outer world application and inner self preservation. I want to know why you think self preparation is equal to successful application. Right now self preparation is sounding more like permanent basic self preservation to me.


I distinguish thought from action. How? Thought means comparisons in one's head. (My definition.) Action means movement of the whole person. Do you see how those are different? It's something like width is different from length. Inner world means activity in one's brain. Outerworld means the content is about outside oneself. Allow for a little overlap. <-- If that isn't quite clear, it's because it needs more refinement.



triphazex said:


> I'm arguing INTJ's can do that quicker not because they're more impatient to know everything but because they have the intuition to know what's important and they have the patience to go back and fill in the gaps.


I think you are right if you are saying INTJs make judgments as to what is important. I know I'm not replying to everything you've posted. I could ask you for restrictions to what YOU think is important, but then you are not an INTJ.




triphazex said:


> You have to if you want to prove the INTP and the INTJ have balanced intelect.


I have no such desire. Both are different in goals; each likes to think.




triphazex said:


> I don't actually understand what you mean by having a lot on ones mind. Are you just talking about life or being full of thoughts? Are you accepting that INTJ's are smarter because you realize your thought's have no direction?


Both. I have a lot of thoughts on my mind. That essay on "The Nature and Origin of Consciousness" nags me because my Fe tells me I have an obligation to present my "discoveries" to experts who puzzle about this. I have reservations on working on it because I don't have a personal relationship with any "expert."




triphazex said:


> "intelligence is the likelihood of becoming immortal"


I don't see the connection. It makes little sense to me. Elaborate?




triphazex said:


> I've explained through all my points that INTJ's are basically just INTP's without their defect


No. Disagree. INTx's differ in what they LIKE to think about. When they work together they can supplement each other.

Allow me to say I *like* your ideas because they give rise to thought. I just lack the time. Don't expect perfection from me.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> Are you sure about *who* is responsible for your confusion?


Yes. You don't have to abide by anything I say. I was just wondering about your thought process due to the lack of reciprocating my method.



BigApplePi said:


> Those are quite some statements. I will keep them in mind. INFP = Fi Ne Si Te. What type are you? I'm not good at guessing, but I'd try ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si for you. You are extroverted because you *lead with Ne.*


It's strange how some people think I'm extraverted. I'm not even on the introverted v.s extraverted spectrum. I tend to consider myself asocial due to my 100% to 99% introversion through the MBTI and big 5. It's my most extreme dichotomy. Unless you're in a situation there's never a point to reacting or being social. I'm quite theoretical but I'm also quite stoic. Someone I've known for around half a year in a college said that. I have a system, you just don't seem to see that because I think you're a feeler. You don't see how long I can blankly stare at the screen to make and revise responses. Do you think prose makes the text seem extraverted? You could also say I'm INTJ because I'm trying to win the discussion because that's Ni. Maybe I'm ENTP and there's some disconnect between my functions and what extroverts usually do. ENTP's are the most introverted extroverts but they definitely don't get 100% introverted every time a test checks for it. Whatever 2 functions you use the most in a certain order beyond this discussion's what defines your type. You can't rule out the possibility of INTJ either. Ni+Te can appear to be Ne as I've said before.



BigApplePi said:


> I didn't know that. How are those INTP traits? Don't forget INTPs lead with Ti and who knows what a leading Ti person is thinking? You think INTPs are long-winded?


They're long because they consider every variable. INTP's like to completely explain a compiler error in understandable English by explaining the entire application to themselves and others repeatedly. If they didn't try to explain it all they would be using Te which they hate. Their systems are strong because they constantly go over the entire system internally and externally which in turn causes them to strengthen their memory of it all. they're more likely to explain the system rather than saying where it went wrong. INTJ's are more likely to say where it went wrong instead of explaining the system. A scripted INTJ can use Ne to sound genuine while A scripted INTP can use Te to stop talking about stuff no one cares about. Most people also agree INTP's the people behind the overcomplicated systems ISTJ's have to memorize to teach unfortunate students. They're behind the giant walls of text. They're overthinkers and they're also Kowalski from the penguins of Madagascar who's always asked to perform analysis in order to explain why everything's the way it is.



BigApplePi said:


> I would say over time, the functions can be developed, all eight. Lots of time. You still keep the earlier ones. I see you as making a lot of statements, all general. I tend to not want to make deductions from those because I don't believe they are general enough and carry too many exceptions. If you want to do that, that is okay with me but I don't have to reply to them.
> 
> Agreed Ne-Si are different but are okay with me as they supply input to Ti.
> 
> BTW you talk Socionics a lot. I don't care to think of Socionics if I've yet to master the MBTI, lol.


I'm not general because I don't know what I'm talking about; It's the opposite. I'm considering the best balance of broadness and specificity. I can be both broad and specific. If I'm too broad what I say won't make any sense; if I'm too specific I'll leave out other good options I've found.



BigApplePi said:


> How do you define "happiness." I once defined it and never had to revise it. Want to see it? How do you bring up electrons in the same sentence? Are you trying to display another topic? I have an answer about connecting electrons to life. Want to hear about it?


 Happiness is simply whatever one truly wants. As we evolve we'll figure out what drives us and we'll choose to be driven by "good qualia" AKA happiness, represented by things such as, food, sex, accomplishment, and drugs. We can be driven by fear, shame, pain, and the negative effects of drugs but we will eliminate them. This process is what it means to grow. I have tons of personal quotes on this philosophical stuff and I have some quotes I find hard to revise put at the top of some notes. What I'm saying is just an informal way of saying it. I may revise my work but I do measure the quantity of how much I've done to measure the quality.
Tell me how you define happiness. Happiness has to do with chemicals. If you fully understand our micro-sized world you'll understand the sum of it. Electrons are the reason why happiness and everything else we don't know is so hard to figure out. Their orbitals explain most of the chemical interactions from the real world. Everything in the chemical world would be figured out if it weren't for that. I could program a simulation of the universe and cause the events that created life from the fundamental particles, maybe deeper if understanding electrons require string theory.
Have you heard of Conway's game of life? I believe If I make the actual rules work something like that, being Turing complete, the simulation could work. If it has color and works in 3 dimensions it could create reality. Computational power is an obvious problem. Understanding the general patterns to make a L.O.D algorithm would fix that, or quantum computers. I do want to hear your answer concerning connecting electrons to life.

I bet you think this is off-topic but remember that we're defining happiness because we believe the amount one can get decides intelligence.



BigApplePi said:


> That is quite a paragraph. It makes a lot of assumptions. What has you thinking I will response to them all? Do you want me to see selective or respond to all? I don't have time. I tell myself to work on an essay I'm failing to write. It's on the nature and origin of consciousness.


Respond to whatever will help you prove your point faster or give up. I told you everything you think's an assumption is backed up by a more fundamental argument. This's why I'm saying you can't see my system. If your paper isn't a "top ten theories on explaining the nature and origin of consciousness" go ahead and leave. You don't have to respond right away. Maybe I'll come back one day to respond to your inquiries.



BigApplePi said:


> How so? Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." Also one can look for evidence that another person is thinking.


 You can never know if one is sentient. If you died by getting your brain scooped out due to aliens and had every part of your body controlled by them, hypothetically, through something like nanotechnology from "Big Hero 6" entering your bloodstream are you sentient? Another thing we'll consider sentient is a wooden plank with a photo of your face slapped unto it with all the advanced functionality that makes you "you". If people were dumb enough to not realize the robots of today aren't human are the robots now sentient? Cavemen can believe they are. The more similar something is to us the more likely we are to call it sentient.
This doesn't mean it's becoming more sentient though as I've given through my examples. A line must be drawn based on our limitations to help those who are similar to us. Cows will be considered less sentient than us. Rocks will be considered much less sentient. You can argue it's the activity of neurons or something like that but my theory will work longer because sentience will be decided based on interpretation as long as we have our biological desire to help those who function like us despite their inner-workings. This is one of the reasons why people are scared of A.I.



BigApplePi said:


> I distinguish thought from action. How? Thought means comparisons in one's head. (My definition.) Action means movement of the whole person. Do you see how those are different? It's something like width is different from length. Inner world means activity in one's brain. Outerworld means the content is about outside oneself. Allow for a little overlap. <-- If that isn't quite clear, it's because it needs more refinement.


 If something has a width of 90,000 kilometers and a length of 0 what do you think its actual width is. Is its width bigger than the INTJ's whose width is 70,000 with a height of 35,000? They're fighting over the area, or perimeter, it doesn't matter. This is what I mean when I say the INTP doesn't take their time contemplating into consideration. Also, the answer is no because 90,000 * 0 is 0. This is the problem with the Pure-INTP. You've said yes and no to this question in different posts. You said "Intellect with a purpose needs an intellect. An intellect by itself needs a purpose.", but you disagreed with "you can't decide if thought without action is still thought". INTJ's obviously have an intellect, INTP's don't have a purpose, as far as I've explained their system-making habits.
The INTP only starts considering the height when it's absolutely necessary. It sounds like they'll only start working on that Ni goal of immortality when they're 70, hurting. By then they'd most likely end up getting hit hard by the reality of chance, dying. That realization's rare for INTP's and it's extremely rare for them to do significant progress even if they've had that realization due to their age. The INTP walks a tightrope, unlike the INTJ. Also, since they're generally in pain it's not even healthy to try changing the world that late.
It's that rare for ENTP's to be that successful and they have no loop boxing them in their first 2 functions. I don't know why, but the XNTP also often needs someone to guide them as well. Based on this the INTP's actually being more competitive, and being dumber, than the INTJ who spends their whole life narrowing down on immortality. Do you really think they could do it in that short amount of time compared to the second smartest type who starts working towards it their entire life?



BigApplePi said:


> I think you are right if you are saying INTJs make judgments as to what is important. I know I'm not replying to everything you've posted. I could ask you for restrictions to what YOU think is important, but then you are not an INTJ.


INTP's are actually more judgemental since they lead with a judging function. Do you know how to tell if the extraverted function you see is backed by an introverted function? Using wording that acknowledges that will prove you have a good level of understanding someone. I'm hoping another paragraph settles our dispute since I don't see anything we disagree with on this strand anymore.



BigApplePi said:


> I have no such desire. Both are different in goals; each likes to think.


INTP's don't really have goals. Do I have to keep mentioning how they can get stuck on irrational systems and are actually pushed to solve those more than rational problems?



BigApplePi said:


> Both. I have a lot of thoughts on my mind. That essay on "The Nature and Origin of Consciousness" nags me because my Fe tells me I have an obligation to present my "discoveries" to experts who puzzle about this. I have reservations on working on it because I don't have a personal relationship with any "expert."


 Ok, well you're right about me having thoughts. Nothing else though. Even though I do everything for the sake of adding to my T.O.E, theory of everything, I look like a no-life cause I'm often in my room all day, I do balance my health though. I was like this even before the pandemic. I think I might be an INTP so I'm going to use the situation as a reason to consider the INTP less intelligent than the INTJ.
I think I've responded to everything else you've said here before. I'm not going to talk about your personal life in this thread just like how I won't for mine if it doesn't benefit the discussion.



BigApplePi said:


> I don't see the connection. It makes little sense to me. Elaborate?


I hoped you'd be able to put the pieces together based on everything I've been saying about the effect of the concept through my posts, that didn't seem to work. Let me go back and make sure you're taking account of this body.
``


triphazex said:


> Let me try to explain what I define as intelligence. The ability to be happier than everyone else. Of course no one is equal due to their nurture. But in general which type would be happier? Options like the ESFJ and ESFP would actually become relevant in deciding the most intelligent due to their casual mental state. The problem's the capability of using science to modify that value. Everyone has the capability of using drugs and the types I've deemed naturally happy, the ESFJ, and ESFP, will benefit the most from it. Drugs can't compare to immortality though.
> Immortality will achieve all the happiness one's capable off. Dying means you're incapable of becoming happier. No one can truly know if anyone actually dies but it's a principle of nature to treat indifference with the worst intentions when looking for anything, happiness. The universe will become more entropic and everything you search for will gradually disappear until there's nothing. Happiness is attached to something so it will go too.
> By dying, hypothetically, the universe will do a coin-flip to decide if it should reset or turn of it's system to destroy your time vector, not to mention all the other pain you could unwillingly go through. The universes Indifference represents our lack of knowledge on where we will go when these bodies die. I know this idea isn't well-understood by many so you can ask me more about it if you want. I've had about a days long discussion with an ENTP in discord about this immortality thing and appeared to come out looking like an INTP. Just thought I'd say that.
> The question's what type is most likely to become immortal in a simulation? This question has many factors like the nurture and how this theory is implemented but both the INTP and INTJ still seem to compete however you draw the lines. They're the only ones futuristic enough to qualify. Maybe I just need to program it myself and tell the world which types are smarter based off the most accurate way of programing the system since there are inaccurate ways of doing so I expect everyone also uses. What type do you think would be most likely to succeed at this.


``



BigApplePi said:


> No. Disagree. INTx's differ in what they LIKE to think about. When they work together they can supplement each other.
> 
> Allow me to say I *like* your ideas because they give rise to thought. I just lack the time. Don't expect perfection from me.


 That difference in what they like to think about means everything. As I've said again, I'm coming from the axiom of becoming immortal. That's Ni. INTP's have no Ni so they're eliminated. That's the system as simple as possible. The only way I think you could disagree is by using stereotypes, coding stereotypes would be an unsymmetrical system.
The INTJ will seem to come up with many more ideas than the INTP reaching their goal because the INTJ's are concerned with growth. The idea of growth will balance progress and power. INTP's make a bunch of ideas then they need someone else who's experienced in application. INTJ's will get something done even if the world turns its back. INTP's will be forced to reconsider any direction they have because they have Fe over Ni.
With people, INTJ's will show empirical reasons why those currently superior to them should trust them. They won't get their idea stolen and if they do it won't be stolen so easily, Nikola Tesla. INTP's have the opposite case. They look like idea-people and they can easily get their ideas stolen because they're inexperienced with the real world. INTJ's seem to be better working with others though they don't want too whilst INTP's seem to be the opposite case.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> It's strange how some people think I'm extraverted. I'm not even on the introverted v.s extraverted spectrum. I tend to consider myself asocial due to my 100% to 99% introversion through the MBTI and big 5. It's my most extreme dichotomy. Unless you're in a situation there's never a point to reacting or being social. I'm quite theoretical but I'm also quite stoic. Someone I've known for around half a year in a college said that. I have a system, you just don't seem to see that because I think you're a feeler. You don't see how long I can blankly stare at the screen to make and revise responses. Do you think prose makes the text seem extraverted? You could also say I'm INTJ because I'm trying to win the discussion because that's Ni. Maybe I'm ENTP and there's some disconnect between my functions and what extroverts usually do. ENTP's are the most introverted extroverts but they definitely don't get 100% introverted every time a test checks for it. Whatever 2 functions you use the most in a certain order beyond this discussion's what defines your type. You can't rule out the possibility of INTJ either. Ni+Te can appear to be Ne as I've said before.


If you are pointing out uncertainties I agree that is the case. I do score 100 percent introverted on tests, but appear more extroverted on this forum. Why? It gives me a thinking place and I get to take my time and edit. IRL I don't like to be rushed.




triphazex said:


> You can never know if one is sentient. If you died by getting your brain scooped out due to aliens and had every part of your body controlled by them, hypothetically, through something like nanotechnology from "Big Hero 6" entering your bloodstream are you sentient? Another thing we'll consider sentient is a wooden plank with a photo of your face slapped unto it with all the advanced functionality that makes you "you". If people were dumb enough to not realize the robots of today aren't human are the robots now sentient? Cavemen can believe they are. The more similar something is to us the more likely we are to call it sentient.
> This doesn't mean it's becoming more sentient though as I've given through my examples. A line must be drawn based on our limitations to help those who are similar to us. Cows will be considered less sentient than us. Rocks will be considered much less sentient. You can argue it's the activity of neurons or something like that but my theory will work longer because sentience will be decided based on interpretation as long as we have our biological desire to help those who function like us despite their inner-workings. This is one of the reasons why people are scared of A.I.


 It's okay if you think I'm a feeler as I'm cultivating being aware of my own and other's feelings though success in that department is questionable, lol. I'd say the answer to thinking vs feeling has to do with which one is most conscious. Not to forget all eight cognitive functions can express themselves but it's the conscious favorites that label one. Do you agree or disagree with that? 

You say you have a system. I don't doubt that you believe you have. It's that I don't see it clearly and if that is the case I have to question it.

As for "winning the discussion" I will stick to exploring instead. The only thing that should win is BOTH of us. I regard disagreement as a tentative loss. I don't regard you as an INTJ. All I see at the moment is you seem assertive. I expect that might change but we shall see. I'm a goddam optimist, lol.




triphazex said:


> They're [INTPs] long because they consider every variable. INTP's like to completely explain a compiler error in understandable English by explaining the entire application to themselves and others repeatedly. If they didn't try to explain it all they would be using Te which they hate. Their systems are strong because they constantly go over the entire system internally and externally which in turn causes them to strengthen their memory of it all. they're more likely to explain the system rather than saying where it went wrong.


An INTP may wish to consider every variable, but *expressing it outwardly *is another story. Why would they do that? Everything in my head is half finished. You have some explaining to do.

I'm not sure we are on the same page here. Why do you talk about INTPs using Te and INTJs using Ne? Are you thinking Socionics? I don't do Socionics. 




triphazex said:


> Happiness is simply whatever one truly wants.


You may be onto the right idea, but your sentences need more precision technically. How does one know what one truly wants? Doesn't that lay in the future? What about now? What one imagines they want can lead to disaster.




triphazex said:


> Tell me how you define happiness.


Happiness is scaled from unhappy to happy. Assume one knows what pleasure and pain is. Draw a graph of time on the x-axis and pleasure/ pain on the y-axis where zero is neutral. Happiness over time = the area under the curve. Using this graph one can answer how happy one was over a given time period. Questions? Makes sense? 




triphazex said:


> I do want to hear your answer concerning connecting electrons to life.


Once again my answer is technical and meant to be accurate. The connection of electrons to life is distant conceptually has has to be spelled out. Electrons are grouped into atoms which are grouped into molecules (notice I've left out protons and neutrons but they are part of it) which are grouped into special DNA code plus other materials. Further groupings describe biology and we have life. Notice I've left out how all this is arranged. The point is there is a complex pathway from small particules to life. The pathway from life to electrons or electrons to life is obscures by the complexity of all that goes in between.




triphazex said:


> I bet you think this is off-topic but remember that we're defining happiness because we believe the amount one can get decides intelligence.


I'm puzzling about your motives for this. You wish to relate happiness to intelligence? What is the connection? Why not other things ... like the heat in the climate or the height of one's parents? Off topic indeed!




triphazex said:


> If your paper isn't a "top ten theories on explaining the nature and origin of consciousness" ...


Not only is it in the top ten, it's at the very top (he boasted) ... except space denies ultimate detail, lol.




triphazex said:


> You can never know if one is sentient. If you died by getting your brain scooped out due to aliens and had every part of your body controlled by them, hypothetically, through something like nanotechnology from "Big Hero 6" entering your bloodstream are you sentient? Another thing we'll consider sentient is a wooden plank with a photo of your face slapped unto it with all the advanced functionality that makes you "you". If people were dumb enough to not realize the robots of today aren't human are the robots now sentient? Cavemen can believe they are. The more similar something is to us the more likely we are to call it sentient.
> This doesn't mean it's becoming more sentient though as I've given through my examples. A line must be drawn based on our limitations to help those who are similar to us. Cows will be considered less sentient than us. Rocks will be considered much less sentient. You can argue it's the activity of neurons or something like that but my theory will work longer because sentience will be decided based on interpretation as long as we have our biological desire to help those who function like us despite their inner-workings. This is one of the reasons why people are scared of A.I.


How sentient does one have to be to be sentient? I say it's a matter of degree. How warm does water have to be to be warm? Artificial intelligence has a way to go. A.I. needs more than a computer. It needs sense organs. Without sense organs why could a computer give a fuck even if it could learn stuff?




triphazex said:


> If something has a width of 90,000 kilometers and a length of 0 what do you think its actual width is. Is its width bigger than the INTJ's whose width is 70,000 with a height of 35,000? They're fighting over the area, or perimeter, it doesn't matter. This is what I mean when I say the INTP doesn't take their time contemplating into consideration. Also, the answer is no because 90,000 * 0 is 0. This is the problem with the Pure-INTP. You've said yes and no to this question in different posts. You said "Intellect with a purpose needs an intellect. An intellect by itself needs a purpose.", but you disagreed with "you can't decide if thought without action is still thought". INTJ's obviously have an intellect, INTP's don't have a purpose, as far as I've explained their system-making habits.
> The INTP only starts considering the height when it's absolutely necessary. It sounds like they'll only start working on that Ni goal of immortality when they're 70, hurting. By then they'd most likely end up getting hit hard by the reality of chance, dying. That realization's rare for INTP's and it's extremely rare for them to do significant progress even if they've had that realization due to their age. The INTP walks a tightrope, unlike the INTJ. Also, since they're generally in pain it's not even healthy to try changing the world that late.
> It's that rare for ENTP's to be that successful and they have no loop boxing them in their first 2 functions. I don't know why, but the XNTP also often needs someone to guide them as well. Based on this the INTP's actually being more competitive, and being dumber, than the INTJ who spends their whole life narrowing down on immortality. Do you really think they could do it in that short amount of time compared to the second smartest type who starts working towards it their entire life?


That's quite a mouthful and places a lot in the pot. Width 2 x 3 is a real possibility. 2 x 0 is theoretical and not real. End of story. Pure INTPs don't exist either. Real INTPs have sub-purposes but not relatively bigger ones. 

When you say, "XNTP also often needs someone to guide them" I say you're on to something. 
"It sounds like they'll only start working on that Ni goal of immortality when they're 70, hurting." - very close to the truth. That applies to me. 
"Also, since they're generally in pain it's not even healthy to try changing the world that late." - I'm more worried about time running out. Pain isn't much a factor. I'm adequately healthy, lol.




triphazex said:


> INTP's are actually more judgemental since they lead with a judging function.


INTPs are more judgmental when it comes to thinking. Overall they are more P (more perceptive). Do you agree?




triphazex said:


> INTP's don't really have goals. Do I have to keep mentioning how they can get stuck on irrational systems and are actually pushed to solve those more than rational problems?


I will rephrase that. INTPs have goals to straighten out inconsistencies. They need an outside push to achieve an overall goal. As for my overall essay goal, it looks like I'm on my own. I'll have to wait for an inspiration that may never come or just forget perfection. Some have a muse but I don't have one and can't get one. INTPs are a lonely crowd.




triphazex said:


> I look like a no-life cause I'm often in my room all day, I do balance my health though. I was like this even before the pandemic. I think I might be an INTP so I'm going to use the situation as a reason to consider the INTP less intelligent than the INTJ.
> I think I've responded to everything else you've said here before. I'm not going to talk about your personal life in this thread just like how I won't for mine if it doesn't benefit the discussion.


You have my permission to be an INTP. Not to worry about a "no-life" as I am a different person. Never can tell if conversation with another can inspire. It's possible to learn from another if only because of differences. Also don't worry about INTPs being less intelligent. You may have heard the story of the race between the tortoise and the rabbit. The tortoise can still win!

About personal life. One has to use judgment as this forum goes observed. Personal life revelations do serve to make generalities more real as good examples. 




triphazex said:


> The universe will become more entropic and everything you search for will gradually disappear until there's nothing.


A thought to the contrary.
(1) Outside energy could enter in messing up that entropy.
(2) Random behavior could, given indefinite time, come up and seed growth and renewal. Just think of life on Earth although that was energy fed.




triphazex said:


> I'm coming from the axiom of becoming immortal.


You are interested in immortality? What about the more mundane issue of life and death? It is both macroscopic and microscopic, ya know.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> It's okay if you think I'm a feeler as I'm cultivating being aware of my own and other's feelings though success in that department is questionable, lol. I'd say the answer to thinking vs feeling has to do with which one is most conscious. Not to forget all eight cognitive functions can express themselves but it's the conscious favorites that label one. Do you agree or disagree with that?
> 
> You say you have a system. I don't doubt that you believe you have. It's that I don't see it clearly and if that is the case I have to question it.
> 
> As for "winning the discussion" I will stick to exploring instead. The only thing that should win is BOTH of us. I regard disagreement as a tentative loss. I don't regard you as an INTJ. All I see at the moment is you seem assertive. I expect that might change but we shall see. I'm a goddam optimist, lol.


Yeah, people change their personalities depending on what's most important to them. People may not actually be the best at their functions but they know that going through those functions will still yield what they want. This idea still aligns with the personality being mostly the same after childhood.



BigApplePi said:


> It's okay if you think I'm a feeler as I'm cultivating being aware of my own and other's feelings though success in that department is questionable, lol. I'd say the answer to thinking vs feeling has to do with which one is most conscious. Not to forget all eight cognitive functions can express themselves but it's the conscious favorites that label one. Do you agree or disagree with that?
> 
> You say you have a system. I don't doubt that you believe you have. It's that I don't see it clearly and if that is the case I have to question it.
> 
> As for "winning the discussion" I will stick to exploring instead. The only thing that should win is BOTH of us. I regard disagreement as a tentative loss. I don't regard you as an INTJ. All I see at the moment is you seem assertive. I expect that might change but we shall see. I'm a goddam optimist, lol.


 I think we're on the same page regarding what you said at first. Your functions are what you're most concerned with, they're not based on what others see from you. INTP's question things that aren't in their system so that shows you could still be one. INFP's often don't listen, act like they're thinking when they're actually just picking the best-looking noise in their head, then reply by saying something random often with a spice of agitation. They're considered the second most awkward personality so I still believe you can fit in that category, INTP's the first. Think of Kermit the Frog, he's so far the best example of an INFP I've seen.

It seems I've already won the discussion. I was arguing about the pure versions of the types fighting through the intellect. You have 3 quotes reaffirming that intellect without a purpose is useless and the last one directly says pure INTP's are the definition of that and they don't even exist. I wouldn't say they don't exist but I would say that I think we agree on their inferior "perimeter of intellect" throughout all time.
Some random 70-year-old INTP web designer won't become the next Elon Musk in the next 10 to 20 years. They'll only die sooner by trying. Because they constantly stretch out their functions towards Ni their Ti would suffer because of it. The INTP would undoubtedly learn new things as they race towards success. The thing is they can't learn anymore due to their extreme stress, due to dementia. The will they have to learn new things would actually backfire again due to old age causing them to forget as much as they learn. It wouldn't matter if Ni suffers because the vision can be implanted in Si, so even if an INTJ's stressed, the vision's strength will always remain the same. This is why procrastination doesn't work in life. I wonder what Ti and Fi have in common?
Anyway, I've explained my graph over time comparing the 2 as well. You can't just say they must be equal. That sounds like your saying that cause others do and also because it sounds like you're biased towards nice-sounding philosophy. If they must be they're equal in the amount of value they both share. The INTJ's value is positive whilst the INTP's negative. At least the INFP's chase towards something in the real world, a social life. Also if Pure-INTP's don't exist then that means the Pure-INTJ wins by default. A Pure-INTJ has no arguments for not being able to exist. How could you balance this important part of the main argument now? Why am I texting all of this when I know you're most likely going to ignore most of it cause you like filtering my words through a way that's too broad and unstructured?

Because no matter what you say I only see 2 ways for a solution to this based on symmetry. The first one's considering Socionics. The function blocks will put Ni-Te and Ti-Ne together. It's as others in this thread have said, the 2 types just have a preference for either lead role. This will make their difference near meaningless. The weird thing's this forum's using MBTI letters so I have to assume we're talking about the MBTI. If we were using Socionics all of these comments, the poll, the votes as well would make perfect sense. The MBTI's versions of these 2 and every other type from it are completely different from Socionics.
Socionics groups the functions based on the functions themselves. The MBTI groups them based on function variety. This means Socionics is more realistic while the MBTI is more aesthetic. Well, if you agree that a thinker is always a thinker no matter if he's using the introverted or the extraverted kind. The MBTI doesn't do this causing the personalities to take a more extreme approach towards everything. This doesn't mean the MBTI is bad but it means it can be used to turn anyone into a caricature of themselves which might actually be desirable in understanding someone. I'd recommend using the MBTI types in movies, cartoons, and jokes instead of Socionincs, I think this may be a good reason why the MBTI's more popular than Socionics.
The second reason's through getting rid of my fundamental axiom that the meaning of life's immortality. It will decide happiness, happiness will decide intellect.



BigApplePi said:


> An INTP may wish to consider every variable, but *expressing it outwardly *is another story. Why would they do that? Everything in my head is half finished. You have some explaining to do.
> 
> I'm not sure we are on the same page here. Why do you talk about INTPs using Te and INTJs using Ne? Are you thinking Socionics? I don't do Socionics.


 Ne means to explain things. Systems are objective so if they're really long and you want to factor all of it you'll explain all of it. Since INTP's do this in their head they'll naturally tend to in the real world. It doesn't matter whether the systems complete. If an INTP believes explaining it all will help someone understand it so they can improve the system they'll do that. I don't have some explaining to do, It sounds like you need to relearn the basics of cognitive functions. Is that your inferior Fe or what's actually the issue here?
You brought up the idea of INTP's using Te. You were making an idea against the INTJ so I decided to do use my UNO reverse card to express the same thing for the INTP. You tell me again why Ti+Ne = Te and I'll explain Why Ni+Te = Ne.



BigApplePi said:


> You may be onto the right idea, but your sentences need more precision technically. How does one know what one truly wants? Doesn't that lay in the future? What about now? What one imagines they want can lead to disaster.


This is exactly what I mean when I say you don't see my system and avoid most of what I say. My sentences aren't individual ideas to look at in explaining the argument. This is a part of a paragraph. This is the thesis of the paragraph. I'm explaining it in it's broadest form as a claim. Have you ever heard of C.E.X (Claim, Evidence, Example)? I specifically called out the exact same questions you're asking now in that paragraph. This is definitely a source of irritation for me that perhaps also explains why so much of my explanations are being unheard. Look at the rest of this paragraph.
``


triphazex said:


> Happiness is simply whatever one truly wants. As we evolve we'll figure out what drives us and we'll choose to be driven by "good qualia" AKA happiness, represented by things such as, food, sex, accomplishment, and drugs. We can be driven by fear, shame, pain, and the negative effects of drugs but we will eliminate them. This process is what it means to grow.


``
I mentioned that we will be led by those things and those things will have negative effects, drugs. They will be eliminated by learning. That's why the meaning of life isn't to eat a sandwich because too much of anything isn't good for you. Besides immortality, which I'm sure we'll argue about because it's the only chance left you got in order to beat me at what type I think to be the better intellectual.



BigApplePi said:


> Happiness is scaled from unhappy to happy. Assume one knows what pleasure and pain is. Draw a graph of time on the x-axis and pleasure/ pain on the y-axis where zero is neutral. Happiness over time = the area under the curve. Using this graph one can answer how happy one was over a given time period. Questions? Makes sense?


The graph makes sense, Pain and pleasure are the 2 hemispheres that stem from the line in the middle. Yeah sure, this theory won't give food to the starving kids in Africa more than they've been given though. This is base-level knowledge, everything I've heard from you's base-level knowledge. You have some ISTJ vibes, they're the most common type so I don't blame you for sounding like them sometimes.



BigApplePi said:


> Once again my answer is technical and meant to be accurate. The connection of electrons to life is distant conceptually has has to be spelled out. Electrons are grouped into atoms which are grouped into molecules (notice I've left out protons and neutrons but they are part of it) which are grouped into special DNA code plus other materials. Further groupings describe biology and we have life. Notice I've left out how all this is arranged. The point is there is a complex pathway from small particules to life. The pathway from life to electrons or electrons to life is obscures by the complexity of all that goes in between.


This isn't detailed, this's just text-book classifications. I was hoping you had an answer to all the complexity that happened in-between. I learned all this in school. I'm the type of guy who'd want to program all the complexity in between. Do you know about ribosomes? They take proteins and convert them into 4 types of atoms. These atoms are codes to build genetic code for RNA and DNA. I was thinking these codes could be simple actions like excreating atoms turning left, turning right, turning down, and turning up. This could be used as a 3D printer that may have to deal with round edges.



BigApplePi said:


> I'm puzzling about your motives for this. You wish to relate happiness to intelligence? What is the connection? Why not other things ... like the heat in the climate or the height of one's parents? Off topic indeed!


If you don't understand this, I don't know what else to say. If you're immortal you will grow until you have control over everything cause that's what life means. If you're dead you can no longer grow for the rest of eternity. Screw the heat of climate change, let the world burn cause you can watch. You want to care about the height of your parents care as much as you want. You want to live a thousand years to look at the height of your parents because you've decided it's the meaning of your life do as you please. You can do whatever you please cause you'll never die. Oh, also if you want to die, die. I recommend you don't though cause no one knows what's after death through empirical evidence. You may be tortured forever in hell by The alien God from Jupiter mentally fabricated by an intelligent species we never knew that somehow lives under its gas. I'm being what you define as ridiculous for the sake of it. You can't say it's ridiculous because something is only ridiculous if you can prove it's ridiculous. If you're tortured forever you could never come back at this certain time in our vector to show it's the case. If you understand certain ways of explaining time-travel this could certainly be the case. Universes that are created to look like our own may not be our own. Even though everything can look the way it does now, after times longer than we can imagine happen, it doesn't mean that it will. Another way to not commit suicide's to develop the technology to reset your memories, you can even restart from a new body with that ability so you can live your dream life. The fact that any hypothetical problem that deals with infinite pain's what gives them infinite importance. Dealing with them automatically has to do with dealing with the mundane problems of today because they're both simply trying to escape death. The former actually encourages the latter to be solved faster. Time may be infinite but that doesn't mean it'll loop back around and we'll find alien species from the future willing to help us. That's proven not to be the case. Immortality's the most obvious thing to have. This is the problem with death. Don't start talking about what religious people say, keep it empirical. The body directly below's the first part of the meaning of life I've defined directly through my notes, above here's just me ranting about how you don't get it and no one gets it, at least after a day of talking to whoever it is.

What's the meaning of life? It's immortality. We don't know what happens after death from empirical evidence, let alone science, so we must expect the worst from it. It's a principle of reality to expect the worst from the unknown. If you expect the best from anything you may end up getting the worst out of it. If you expect the worst out of the unknown; meaning, the more prepared you are to face it the more likely you'll obtain the best ought of it.
Immortality means to be as secure as you can by knowing as much as you can. We are scared of suffering without ever being able to communicate that pain. What happens in death's only the epiphany of that notion. This theory is unfalsifiable because to test it you'd need to know the maximum amount of pain we could inflict on someone whilst forcing them to forget about ever having hope. Finally, checking back with them to see if their strongest desire in life was to avoid that experience. Locking people in a dark room for 48 hours isn't near the amount of pain they should be receiving. Forget about the worst punishments and torture devices. You'd need to make a literal hell, keeping them there for many times over the life of the universe and finally checking back with them. Keep in mind how we've been taught to deliver information. Whatever we communicate's due to our environment. If you wanted someone to elicit a certain response out of someone you have to consider their culture. you'll have to change the environment if you want everyone to agree with your meaning of life. Anyway, after you've become immortal, understanding this, you can float in outer space from now till the universe has phased out with no problem.
People could suffer in the afterlife for reasons, perhaps, undiscoverable. Like dissolving, then floating around till it's the end of the universe. Only for there to be a new one. They'd also have to wait for all the other lucky parameters to live again. You could have a cycle of new lives almost never to have a chance like this. To be as happy as you could be for so long. You can believe you have control over this life but not the next; unless its existence is scientifically proven, it's possible to control so you can make yourself happy throughout it, and to ensure any others after are the same way. If this is true, or you're not cut out to achieve this, you can reason with death.

Life communicates so it can learn how to avoid pain. Death's the permanent communication barrier, it shuts off one's ability to communicate. The bigger the barrier the more scientific verification it needs. The meaning of life's immortality. By doing so, you'll master how to avoid pain.

Even after talking about it, no one could find a way to simplify what I'm trying to say where I didn't have to do this kind of thing again. Why does this concept require so much back and forth? If things would be done the way they should this concept ought to be universally understood. It really pisses me off because I know this is probably the most fundamental and the most simple system to abide by yet for some reason it always takes a million words for anyone to have a vague idea of it. It guarantees omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Simply put immortality will max out all our stats. For some reason, no one gets that even when I say it like that.



BigApplePi said:


> Not only is it in the top ten, it's at the very top (he boasted) ... except space denies ultimate detail, lol.


I guess there's nothing to say here. We seem to be narrowing down on what actually needs to be talked about.
Actually, who boasted what? Could you tell me a summary of what your paper says? curiosity



BigApplePi said:


> How sentient does one have to be to be sentient? I say it's a matter of degree. How warm does water have to be to be warm? Artificial intelligence has a way to go. A.I. needs more than a computer. It needs sense organs. Without sense organs why could a computer give a fuck even if it could learn stuff?


"The only one you can know to exist is yourself" - René Descartes
Replace "exist" with "be sentient". If you want a solid truth on sentience look to Solipsism. Sentience exists but it cannot be understood no matter how apparent it may be. If I didn't explain how sentient one has to be through what I've said in this and the message you've responded to I have nothing else to say about this topic. I told you sentience is inherently unprovable. Your dissatisfaction with my system's proof. It's the best system I could come up with. I want to see you do better.



BigApplePi said:


> That's quite a mouthful and places a lot in the pot. Width 2 x 3 is a real possibility. 2 x 0 is theoretical and not real. End of story. Pure INTPs don't exist either. Real INTPs have sub-purposes but not relatively bigger ones.
> 
> When you say, "XNTP also often needs someone to guide them" I say you're on to something.
> "It sounds like they'll only start working on that Ni goal of immortality when they're 70, hurting." - very close to the truth. That applies to me.
> "Also, since they're generally in pain it's not even healthy to try changing the world that late." - I'm more worried about time running out. Pain isn't much a factor. I'm adequately healthy, lol.


When I mean by saying it's not healthy I'm saying that trying to do anything at that age will only increase the risk of death, not sure if you caught that. We don't seem to disagree with anything else here.



BigApplePi said:


> INTPs are more judgmental when it comes to thinking. Overall they are more P (more perceptive). Do you agree?


No, I don't agree. All introverts in the MBTI have their P's and J's switched. INTP in the MBTI is INTJ in socionics. Do you want to know why? Because the MBTI is biased towards the extraverted functions. Honestly, it is easier to explain people this way but it isn't accurate. ISFP's are judgers. ISFJ's are perceivers. ESFP's are perceivers. ESFJ's are Judgers. These dichotomies are what determines how the functions bounce of each other if you decided to write about them. Each function isn't just an abstract term decided by a stereotype. As I've described them a while ago I've used a few terms to reflect how they bounce off each other.
``


triphazex said:


> The dichotomies of the MBTI doesn't have to do with sending or receiving information except for explicitly the P/J dichotomy. I/E decides whether someone reacts to everything or decides to look over whatever it is to conclude later. S/N decides whether someone prefers using new information or old information. T/F decides whether someone is more comfortable being exact or inexact. Then there's P/J which decides whether someone prefers giving or getting information.


``
Isn't this the simplest way of explaining the functions to start off with in order to extract what they mean?

Maybe you should go on a Socionics thread and argue How their INTJ's are actually perceivers. That's what you're mathematically doing here. If you think that I think INTP actively shows judging behavior you're wrong. I've explained in quite a few ways why INTP's are considered perceivers, I can't tell what concepts you're getting. All introverts are both judgers and perceivers. How you decide who fits a term better simply needs a good understanding of their functions' most fundamental meanings that can also simply oppose each other. A desire to do some math's beneficial. You can't simply say one's smarter because they're a perceiver or judger if they're introverted.
ISFP's are normally peaceful perceptive people as most might say. Then you have Sasuke Uchiha who's an ISFP. Would you want to call him perceptive? No, he's definitely a judger, just look at any of his pictures or read his story to see what I mean. People like to call him INTJ, even me, but due to his constant rambunctious behavior, he proves to be an ISFP. Sasuke's Fi is so strong it almost looks like Fe. Seeing his Fi leaking all over the place can make you see a personality's true orientation. Being able to figure stuff like that out's make's you good at typing introverts.
Overall INTP's are more concerned with being exact, Ti, than explaining themselves, Ne. They're more likely to work as a marketing analyst than whatever an ENTP could be. Lawyer maybe?



BigApplePi said:


> I will rephrase that. INTPs have goals to straighten out inconsistencies. They need an outside push to achieve an overall goal. As for my overall essay goal, it looks like I'm on my own. I'll have to wait for an inspiration that may never come or just forget perfection. Some have a muse but I don't have one and can't get one. INTPs are a lonely crowd.


Inconsistencies in their internal system. No one understands them due to them being bad at Fe. The Fe only works when they're under pressure. Remember, they are more likely to get stuck in the 2 functions than the INTJ. That changes a lot. They get stuck in those 2 functions because they have nothing to do with the real world. Ne has to do with short term possibilities.
Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? It seems like we might be going in loops cause you purposely forget what I say cause you don't want to lose. You agree with so much just to disagree with it later cause it's rephrased. Why don't you understand the system? I don't want to have to take a bunch of quotes that show your insecurity over a matter again. I think I've asked about your essay somewhere else so I'll leave this body here.



BigApplePi said:


> You have my permission to be an INTP. Not to worry about a "no-life" as I am a different person. Never can tell if conversation with another can inspire. It's possible to learn from another if only because of differences. Also don't worry about INTPs being less intelligent. You may have heard the story of the race between the tortoise and the rabbit. The tortoise can still win!
> 
> About personal life. One has to use judgment as this forum goes observed. Personal life revelations do serve to make generalities more real as good examples.


I don't need permission to be a type. I'm not sure what you're telling me not to worry about. Yeah, I'm trying to solve one of my more fundamental questions through this argument we're having. What does the short nap represent for INTJ's?



BigApplePi said:


> A thought to the contrary.
> (1) Outside energy could enter in messing up that entropy.
> (2) Random behavior could, given indefinite time, come up and seed growth and renewal. Just think of life on Earth although that was energy fed.


Go read my meaning of life part a while back and see if that answers your question. It's a principle to not trust an outside source to help you if it's based on a hypothesis. I've talked about how much time it could take to make us how we are now. We may all be quantum fluctuations that have a Googleplex of a chance to exist every zeptosecond, almost always opting for obliteration. What we define as syntropy may be an illusion. "The enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance; it's the illusion of knowledge."



BigApplePi said:


> You are interested in immortality? What about the more mundane issue of life and death? It is both macroscopic and microscopic, ya know.


 Humanity is actively trying to conquer the macrocosm and microcosm. We could be obliterated by something so big and inevitable any time like gamma rays. We could be consumed by anything that may come out of the infinitesimally small space we haven't discovered. If it's hopeless and people try to conquer the cosmos we'll fail. But it's the same if people don't try. If it isn't hopeless which we're never certain of people ought to try.
Everyone based on this system's trying to escape death. I don't want to explain religion but it looks like I have to. Religions usually incorporate immortality through the afterlife. If not they become unpopular like atheism. We cannot imagine being mortal, it's literally impossible. If you're trying to escape death through special means or mundane means, the distinction doesn't matter, you're trying to escape death. There is A distinction for the INTP's though and it's the exact opposite of what you'd expect. INTP's actually don't focus on fixing those big giant issues despite their stereotype because they're too busy focusing on their pointless systems. INTJ's on the other hand definitely is. INTP's aren't more likely to become immortal than INTJ's by their bosses yelling at them to get what the boss needs to be done.


How do you disagree with my logic concerning immortality's relation to happiness and intelligence? Did you find some other problem I haven't mentioned? I really hope you can see how I'm picking out some of the things you say. I don't see a pattern in how you pick out some things for me either. Neither have I found anything you've said thus far to be an exception to my system. Everything you've mentioned, through all our posts, has been just odd permutations of my system. I haven't learned anything from talking to you and I suppose you haven't from me. Maybe both of us have working systems it's just that they're so different they're incompatible.


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> I don't understand why INTPs are winning this poll.
> 
> Sure, we're all brainboxes, but so are INTJs. That's pretty much all there is to it.
> 
> Also these days I'm quite comfortably into the trough of the Dunning-Kruger chart (below) so I'll happily accept that tons of people are way smarter than I am.
> 
> View attachment 872679


Socionics: INTP > INTJ
MBTI: INTP < INTJ


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> Why am I texting all of this when I know you're most likely going to ignore most of it cause you like filtering my words through a way that's too broad and unstructured?


I don't deliberately ignore anything so out of the many things you bring up you must prioritize what you think important and I will pay special attention to it. Otherwise I pick and choose.

My impression of what you say in this paragraph is intuition. I don't see it backed up by anything:
1. "INFP's often don't listen, act like they're thinking when they're actually just picking the best-looking noise in their head, then reply by saying something random often with a spice of agitation." - Depends on their maturity.

2. They're considered the second most awkward personality so I still believe you can fit in that category, INTP's the first. - A considered generalization.

3. It seems I've already won the discussion. - You're declaring yourself the winner? Where is the judging committee? A committee of one (you?)

4. The thing is they [70 year olds] can't learn anymore due to their extreme stress, due to dementia. The will they have to learn new things would actually backfire again due to old age causing them to forget as much as they learn. - How many 70 year olds do you know? Do you have statistics on 70+?

I wonder what Ti and Fi have in common? - I'd day they have in common judgements about things within themselves.

5. The INTJ's value is positive whilst the INTP's negative. - Where does that come from? Needs work. BTW I do MBTI not Socionics.

6. Ni-Te and Ti-Ne together. It's as others in this thread have said, the 2 types just have a preference for either lead role. This will make their difference near meaningless. - Look up the meaning of each. I see them as quite different. That is, sources of thinking and intuition are different. 

7. Socionics groups the functions based on the functions themselves. The MBTI groups them based on function variety. This means Socionics is more realistic while the MBTI is more aesthetic. - Interesting, but I can't say since I don't know Socionics.




triphazex said:


> This isn't detailed, this's just text-book classifications.


I presented the summary. If it's complex the explanation is the complexity itself which would be voluminous. What were you looking for? Something different? Did you want some short-cut for electrons to life? I say "life" is an emergent phenomenon. Emergence is explained in my essay.




triphazex said:


> If you want a solid truth on sentience ... Sentience exists but it cannot be understood no matter how apparent it may be. If I didn't explain how sentient one has to be through what I've said in this and the message you've responded to I have nothing else to say about this topic. I told you sentience is inherently unprovable. Your dissatisfaction with my system's proof. It's the best system I could come up with. I want to see you do better.


Sentience? How far should any explanation go? How do you understand an orange? *My *intuition says I can explain sentience. That's the kind of thing that is a challenge to me. I'm not about to write another essay though.




triphazex said:


> Actually, who boasted what? Could you tell me a summary of what your paper says? curiosity


Here is a summary:

Table of Contents. 

Section 1. Personal Introduction
Section 2. Introductory Background
Section 3. The Brain
Section 4. Consciousness
*Consciousness is a focused **process* *emerging** from many **mappings**. (only seven words!)*
I go on to explain focus, process, emergence and mappings in detail.
Section 5. The Unconscious
Section 6. Four Consciousness Categories
Here I take the four Jung categories examining the foundations of each:
senses - senses direct
feeling - continuous flow
intuition - diffuse sensual accumulation
thinking - discontinuous comparison
My problem in writing is I'm bored with what I've already written. Why should I work on it when no one gives a shit?
Section 7. Special Applications
Section 8. Conclusions and Limitations
Section 9. References

@triphazex. I think you have a great many ideas worth exploring. They are worth discussing with others on PerC. Try here: Ask the INTPs a question. I have worked with some other's ideas but have my own thing not having time for everything. I say, keep up the good work ... hang in there.


Later:


triphazex said:


> If you're immortal you will grow until you have control over everything cause that's what life means.


What on Earth are you talking about? Why do you* assume* immortality? Explain this again ... unless you can't. Do you mean life goes on forever? Are you talking religion? Are you telling a fanciful story? If so, I'll accept that.




triphazex said:


> Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? It seems like we might be going in loops cause you purposely forget what I say cause you don't want to lose. You agree with so much just to disagree with it later cause it's rephrased. Why don't you understand the system? I don't want to have to take a bunch of quotes that show your insecurity over a matter again. I think I've asked about your essay somewhere else so I'll leave this body here.


I don't want to take this up now. Do it later. Term meanings have to be agreed upon.


----------



## Glittris

You know what? For some comparison, you should rally some ESFPs and ESFJs and ask them "Which one is more smarter, ESFPs or ESFJs... "

Imagine that happening at a neighbor's grill party near you, of course every ESFx there will use their »intellect« to do what they are best at..., tie the party together, in their own style and fashion.

My questions: What are we measuring here and who is the judge, or referee since this is hopefully some jokingly competition with no defined rules at all.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> I don't deliberately ignore anything so out of the many things you bring up you must prioritize what you think important and I will pay special attention to it. Otherwise I pick and choose.
> 
> My impression of what you say in this paragraph is intuition. I don't see it backed up by anything:
> 1. "INFP's often don't listen, act like they're thinking when they're actually just picking the best-looking noise in their head, then reply by saying something random often with a spice of agitation." - Depends on their maturity.
> 
> 2. They're considered the second most awkward personality so I still believe you can fit in that category, INTP's the first. - A considered generalization.
> 
> 3. It seems I've already won the discussion. - You're declaring yourself the winner? Where is the judging committee? A committee of one (you?)
> 
> 4. The thing is they [70 year olds] can't learn anymore due to their extreme stress, due to dementia. The will they have to learn new things would actually backfire again due to old age causing them to forget as much as they learn. - How many 70 year olds do you know? Do you have statistics on 70+?
> 
> I wonder what Ti and Fi have in common? - I'd day they have in common judgements about things within themselves.
> 
> 5. The INTJ's value is positive whilst the INTP's negative. - Where does that come from? Needs work. BTW I do MBTI not Socionics.
> 
> 6. Ni-Te and Ti-Ne together. It's as others in this thread have said, the 2 types just have a preference for either lead role. This will make their difference near meaningless. - Look up the meaning of each. I see them as quite different. That is, sources of thinking and intuition are different.
> 
> 7. Socionics groups the functions based on the functions themselves. The MBTI groups them based on function variety. This means Socionics is more realistic while the MBTI is more aesthetic. - Interesting, but I can't say since I don't know Socionics.


1.You're right. It does depend on their maturity. I'm going by stereotypes so you get a good idea of an INFP. Those statements weren't that important. The same goes with how I defined the ISFP for Sasuke Uchiha. We're you able to tell that defining the INFP wasn't that relevant to the discussion?
2.Once again I'm going by stereotypes and the fact that INFP's are feelers so that automatically makes them less awkward in a social setting. INFP's don't do anything with a strict system so they're able to instantly adapt to whatever one may say instead of having to confuse someone over how a system they had worked.
3.You have to disprove my immortality argument to win. How INTJ's and INTP's handle life's already been discussed. Is there anything that relates to how they live their lives that you also think's relevant? I have a mountain of points I've made that you've agreed with that can be used as evidence to show that the INTP's don't prove their intelligence in any way more than the INTJ and thus are less intelligent.
4.The concept's still a quite reasonable possibility to draw out of the comparison of the two types considering my mountain of evidence that shows how lazy the INTP's are. The fact that they don't get thing's done until their biology goes bad means even if you're on track to die at 120 you'll only start using your inferior functions like Ni when you're 90. It has nothing to do with the abstract age of 70. INTP's trying to change the world at that age would only decrease their life span. They're better of living the rest of their lives as they've always had.
You could say because Ni and Si have perception in common and that's what creates the stable direction. What's the "direction" for Ti and Fi? The lack of one?
5.Your argument that says the 2 types must be balanced doesn't make sense so I tried to explaining why it doesn't. INTP's apparently are the best personality for being the worst personality due to the INFP's at least being able to succeed in a social matter. That's my best explanation for balancing the 2 types. Some types are more intelligent than others. They are scaled. On one side you have the people who don't increase the universal amount of happiness, -1. On the other side, you have people who increase the universal amount of happiness, +1. These scales directly correlate to the chance of becoming immortal and being intelligent. Do you see my system? Immortality, happiness, Intelligence are one and the same. This may be the important thing you were wanting to dispute. This is what my system is founded on. Separate the 3 and I'll have to see this argument in a different light. I hope you don't give dumb examples like happiness means the dopamine you get from food and intelligence means solving math problems. You have to consider the purpose of intelligence. We have a better life than animals because of our intellect. Lifespan is a multiplier. Immortality makes the other 2 limitless. If we stop growing we are no longer alive. dead things don't grow; only life does. If life grows forever it simply will keep growing forever or hit a limit to its growth. Whatever that limit is, is the happiest, most intelligent state.
6.You don't seem to know what you're saying here. I don't see how this idea's complex. You need to know some Socionics to understand my idea of how the INTP could be smarter than the INTJ which is why I have to teach you a portion of the Socionics. It's almost as if you've repeated what I've said. You're disagreeing but you're saying the same things I've mentioned in that part. I said in Socionics the 2 types aren't that different not because their functions are different but because of their function line-up. I'm not talking about the 8 functions themselves being similar. I'm talking about how close the functions are in their line-up. You can't make the extreme statements I've made using Socionics versions. The INTP and INTJ handles life the same but differs in preferences. The MBTI's INTP is similar to an ISFJ. The MBTI's INTJ is similar to an ISFP. Socionics INTP is similar to an ENTJ. Socionics INTJ is similar to an ENTP. The point is in Socionics the INTP has a goal and the INTJ has a system because The INTP has Ni-Te in the primary function stack and the INTJ has Ti-Ne, even though the orders are switched where it looks like the INTP is Te-Ni and the INTJ's Ne-Ti. That's what it means when people say they're balanced only with different preferences.
Here the lineup so you can understand it better:
|MBTI INTJ-Ni,Te,Fi,Se| Socionics INTJ-Ni,Te,Ne, Ti|
|MBTI INTP-Ti,Ne,Si,Fe| Socionics: INTP-Ti,Ne,Te, Ni|
7.I've said it in the previous question but I'll say it again. You needed to know some Socionics to understand my idea of how the INTP could be smarter than the INTJ through Socionincs which is why I had to teach you a portion of it.

I suppose the cause of you having so many questions is due to you not understanding the priority of my statements. I've said it a lot but in order to waste less time I recommend debunking my immortality argument. I've doubted you could convince me of the better type without doing that.



BigApplePi said:


> I presented the summary. If it's complex the explanation is the complexity itself which would be voluminous. What were you looking for? Something different? Did you want some short-cut for electrons to life? I say "life" is an emergent phenomenon. Emergence is explained in my essay.


No, there are some big solutions to scientific phenomena that are simple. E=mc2. In fact, Albert Einstein said if you can't explain something simply you don't know it that well yourself. Look at Minecraft. It's just a game made of cubes but it could be explained in such a complex manner due to how much entropy resides in it. The best things are simple, not complex. My biological 3d printer statement you've responded to was an example.



BigApplePi said:


> Sentience? How far should any explanation go? How do you understand an orange? *My *intuition says I can explain sentience. That's the kind of thing that is a challenge to me. I'm not about to write another essay though.


 I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We understand what an orange is because we sense patterns. That's life's primary function. The better you can do it the more intelligent you are, you need proof your sensing the pattern of course and by proving it you'll do that immortality conundrum I've mentioned before. I think you're talking about something different from me though. That orange example you gave sounds more like how people understand things. I think you're talking about consciousness. If not you should explain sentience in your own words.
What I'm talking about's something that can never be proven to exist. You could be the only one to exist and everyone and everything you know could just be a hologram. They're conscious but they aren't sentient. Actually, I think you completely agree with me by disagreeing with this matter because you can't comprehend sentience through logic. Everything can be comprehended through logic except qualia and sentience. I think being sentient means experiencing qualia. If you want to be as strict as possible you can say it doesn't exist. Sentience is like consciousness but more subtle. Sentience is the consciousness that doesn't have to be perceived as conscious functionally.
If there were 2 beings with the same functionality they would have an equal consciousness. No one can tell who's more sentient but whoever is should be treated better as if they proved they had more functionality like they were more conscious. In trying to differentiate it from a consciousness based on what we know you could say it's the subconscious measurement of someone else's consciousness. If you understand and have a better word tell me.



BigApplePi said:


> Here is a summary:
> 
> Table of Contents.
> 
> Section 1. Personal Introduction
> Section 2. Introductory Background
> Section 3. The Brain
> Section 4. Consciousness
> *Consciousness is a focused **process* *emerging** from many **mappings**. (only seven words!)*
> I go on to explain focus, process, emergence and mappings in detail.
> Section 5. The Unconscious
> Section 6. Four Consciousness Categories
> Here I take the four Jung categories examining the foundations of each:
> senses - senses direct
> feeling - continuous flow
> intuition - diffuse sensual accumulation
> thinking - discontinuous comparison
> My problem in writing is I'm bored with what I've already written. Why should I work on it when no one gives a shit?
> Section 7. Special Applications
> Section 8. Conclusions and Limitations
> Section 9. References
> 
> @triphazex. I think you have a great many ideas worth exploring. They are worth discussing with others on PerC. Try here: Ask the INTPs a question. I have worked with some other's ideas but have my own thing not having time for everything. I say, keep up the good work ... hang in there.


 What do you mean by diffusing sensual accumulation? Does it mean to have the ability to simplify information? Besides that, it sounds like a working system. I can imagine how it all interconnects.
Why don't people try to put their T.O.F's into practice by programming a simulation out of it? I know this is what I want to be known for but there has to be a reason why no one else is doing it. I suppose doing a book on this stuff is hard enough? If you make something stimulating enough to the senses like Minecraft but its goals to actually mimic reality It'd definitely get attention. This outline of a system you've made could be used to guide A.I. It doesn't matter if I do it first. A project like this can be used to educate everyone on the consensus of all our knowledge.
I don't see what you expect me to ask the other INTP's. The only thing I see you disagree with is the immortality problem. I think all you're other problems are due to not understanding that. I've told you how I've discussed it before with someone (ENTP) for quite a long time. Do you still think I need to discuss it again but with an INTP instead? I suppose you don't think you're the best example of an INTP so I should go to that link instead? If so I suppose it might be worth a shot. Is this why you're giving me that link? In my opinion, I think it's a waste of time because I've become pretty confident about the idea.



BigApplePi said:


> What on Earth are you talking about? Why do you* assume* immortality? Explain this again ... unless you can't. Do you mean life goes on forever? Are you talking religion? Are you telling a fanciful story? If so, I'll accept that.


 People desire to live as long as they can. If people can they'll live many times over the life of our universe. Every combination that can possibly happen will be observed but no bad qualia will result from it if even one being became immortal. They'd go through every permutation existence has to offer and cling on to the patterns that help raise their contentment. Life might not go on forever, avoid extinction, but if it does everything will be the way it ought to be.
What seems unrealistic about what I'm saying? Make fun of me. That's how you prove something doesn't make sense. Everything I say in my perspective makes perfect logical sense. You seem triggered by that word assumed. The happiness, intelligence, immortality trio is currently an axiom on explaining life to disprove so the word "assume" seems like it can be used to describe such an ultimatum, no? I didn't have to use that word choice because it actively goes against logic, causing friction between us when arguing. Should I be sorry if you logically should assume something to be the case? Of course, such an ultimatum will be bound by the strongest of evidence but you don't have to know the evidence for it to be the case. Once something is set up for eternity you can assume it's the case, no? The real reason that explains why you should assume something's based on your ability to question it due to its prominence. If you debunk me then I will be sorry because nothing should be assumed if it isn't always right. Everything exists to a degree besides immortality. You can say the universe doesn't but you can't say that if you don't stay and watch it to check if it ends.

The term religion is less fundamental than a philosophy which is why I think the questions you have for me are often bad which is why they rarely get to the point. I can't believe there is anything humans are incapable of. Get your terms straight, please. I'll gladly put anything into question.
Whether there's an axiom or not isn't the point. I didn't have to say anything about an axiom and my system would work exactly the same. I'm just talking about where the system can be closed off in order to make the INTJ more intelligent than the INTP. INTJ's being assisted by their quantum A.I will make them more intelligent in every way. Do you see that I can say the INTJ can do anything due to immortality? Where's the error that makes you think I'm religious?
You seem to prioritize attaching terms that can make someone look unqualified to debate instead of understanding why they use those terms in order to win. Never here did I ever mention Budda will bless the INTJ's to become smarter than the INTP's or did I mention anything about Jesus doing the same. I can't see why you'd think anything is religious without me directly saying something like that. explain or use your terms a little better.



BigApplePi said:


> I don't want to take this up now. Do it later. Term meanings have to be agreed upon.


 How do INTP's even have goals? I told you why they don't. They like to take everything a day at a time and the goals they have are put on them by others. Don't say they normally use Te and Ni cause for probably more than the 5th time it's really hard to get them in their inferior functions. They don't have goals like you were saying, at least no real ones. They can't fix inconsistencies that have to do with the other functions or they'll be another type. Their short term goal's to solve the pointless system in their head and their Ni usually just keeps doing something like that for an even longer run since they're bad at it and not to mention all the other host of other problems I've mentioned like the lack of health they have due to age when they start using it. They're also pushed towards their first two functions more than other types.
If you don't remember why INTP's are pushed towards the first 2 functions I have to say you're pretty bad at Si and we're going in loops. I think it's either inferior, undeveloped after all your time, or maybe it's due to age for the opposite reason. Are you sensing some of the things I keep repeating through all my messages? I've said many concepts we've agreed on in many ways for many of your questions. I'm answering questions that were answered and agreed with a while ago multiple times only through different words.
Why don't you make every question you have use the same algorithm? I don't think you're recreating my system properly. I'm not trying to be mean but you seem so Fi instead of Ti to me, I see only questions made from unpleasant looking noise, stereotypes, and by mistyping yourself with a Pure INTP, your not, you've also said no one is.

It's all a matter of balancing out the types. You can't be biased with one or the other given enough time. INTP's are intelligent by theory. INTJ's are the extremists. INTJ's can do anything except the stuff that doesn't align with their Ni. INTP's and every other type has a degree that they can diverge from their Ni. If you have a goal that will make you, not only empirically, but functionally more intelligent than the INTP the INTJ would win. I've defined that goal. The empirical intelligence will create technology for functional alteration. The INTP would be the hare and the INTJ would be the turtle who wins in the end.


----------



## triphazex

@BigApplePi
You said I had an overactive imagination but I'm pretty sure whatever concept seemed too abstract was because I was saying if immortality would be achieved anything would be possible. There's no such thing as an overactive imagination if you're immortal because you're getting rid of the time out of spacetime; meaning, you can occupy whatever space you want at any time essentially. Saying immortality won't instantly mean the person can pull something like traveling to another universe is the same thing as saying humanity won't ever figure it out in its existence. The INTJ can be motivated by that theoretical goal but the INTP cannot. Do you think an INTJ who works towards it in this century their whole life is unrealistic? Even if they wouldn't, it would be a better motive than whatever the INTP could come up with for scientific achievement. The INTJ is the best type to chase and achieve this goal that surpasses all goals, no? The progress of this goal using Ni-Te will explain less irrational territory than Ti-Ne. Do you agree there, if not, why not?
You don't have to instantly become immortal; but instead, work on increasing the lifespan until immortality velocity is reached. This goal is what systems are made for, it's what intellect's made for, unfortunately, the INTP who's the most potential functionally is indifferent to the goal whilst the INTJ is dedicated to achieving it. Which do you think will yield the most progress? Do you disagree with my concept of achieving immortality, and its relationship to intelligence and why?
I forgot where you mentioned INTJ's can't be given a goal by anyone. It's actually the opposite. INTP's can't be given a goal, they can only work on their own systems and don't care about any other motive. If an INTJ's given a goal they like with enough time they'll achieve it. INTJ's put Ni first and use Te to do it. INTP's put Ti first and use short term goals completely for the sake of their systems. If you say an INTJ did a goal cause someone said they should; they'd simply respond, "No I didn't, It was simply logical to chase this goal. If he didn't tell me I'd still do it."
I think the function line-up determines that the next function will be used for the sake of the current function and nothing more. The first function cannot be used for the sake of the second function. If an INTP would make systems for the sake of a goal no matter how good their Ti would be they would be using Ne-Ti like an ENTP who's good at Ti. This theory can become deflated by using the biological parts of our brain that give dopamine to determine what function will be used for what other function.
INTJ's can use Ni-Te on what needs Ti-Ne but the INTP can't use Ti-Ne on what uses Ni-Te. Things that use Ti-Ne can be done with Ni-Te but things that use Ni-Te can't be done with Ti-Ne. Te is associated with getting things done compared to Fe. Ni-Te means you can get anything done no matter how large the goal is. Ni-Te needs Ti-Ne to get done. You can't say an INTJ can't get a goal done because that's an INFJ problem.
If you tell an INTJ to do something broad and unspecific they'll find a way. If you tell them to do something stupid, they ask you why, telling them it has to do with something more important they'll do it. If you tell an INTP to get something broad and unspecific done they'll ask you not only why but how. Figuring out how to get the specific things done's harder than figuring out a goal to make. Making a purpose, that could have been done with Ni, out of chaining together random Ne is less valuable than doing it out of Ni. Ne without Ni is more entropic which means its value would be degraded. INTP's have a worse ability to put 2 and 2 together than the INTJ.
Ni is a possibility that can nest Ne functions within. The bigger the Ni the bigger and broader a goal can be. Intellect without a purpose isn't intellect. INTJ's are the intellect with a purpose and the INTP's are the intellect without one. If INTP's aren't less intelligent due to the primary systems I've made, like their urge to solve irrational problems, and their inability to spend their life seeking immortality unless someone or something's happened to tyrannize them all the way, they're crushed by my mountain of points.


----------



## triphazex

This poll and its outcome triggers me so much. INTP's are too lazy to be the smartest personality.


----------



## BigApplePi

Below is a saved reply to what is probably your pre-edited post. It would be better if you make major editings a separate post so I don't have to undo what I've written and not sent out.

Reply to #624:


triphazex said:


> 4.The concept's still a quite reasonable possibility to draw out of the comparison of the two types considering my mountain of evidence that shows how lazy the INTP's are. The fact that they don't get thing's done until their biology goes bad means even if you're on track to die at 120 you'll only start using your inferior functions like Ni when you're 90. It has nothing to do with the abstract age of 70. INTP's trying to change the world at that age would only decrease their life span. They're better of living the rest of their lives as they've always had.


You seem to say a lot about INTPs and age. Where do you get this from? I say there are millions of INTPs and they can differ widely.




triphazex said:


> 5. ... Some types are more intelligent than others. They are scaled. ...


At this point I will say, "Some* people *are more intelligent than others." To me other variations swamp particular types. If you wish to pursue this, go ahead. 




triphazex said:


> No, there are some big solutions to scientific phenomena that are simple. E=mc2. In fact, Albert Einstein said if you can't explain something simply you don't know it that well yourself.


I agree with this ... sort of. Things can be looked at from the top down. That top down description should summarize and be simple. Then one goes from there via analysis if one wishes. This is the case for E = mc² . Last time I looked the formula is a simplification.




__





e=mc2 full equation - Google Search






www.google.com








triphazex said:


> you should explain sentience in your own words.


I prefer to pick my own words to explain. There are too many out there. However I'll give my thought to a piece of sentience.




triphazex said:


> What I'm talking about's something that can never be proven to exist. You could be the only one to exist and everyone and everything you know could just be a hologram.


True, but how "proofy" do you want to get? Solipsism isn't very practical, even if possible! Let's take the taste of an orange. Is that subjective sentience? If so and you taste it, detailed reactions may be close enough to assume they taste similarly for both you and 60 percent of others. 40 percent I grant could have different taste buds.




triphazex said:


> *If there were 2 beings with the same functionality they would have an equal consciousness.* No one can tell who's more sentient but whoever is should be treated better as if they proved they had more functionality like they were more conscious.


Let's not complicate this when we can stick to the taste of an orange. No need to bring in a million other functions.




triphazex said:


> What do you mean by diffusing sensual accumulation?


Excellent question. 


BigApplePi said:


> intuition - diffuse sensual accumulation


By that I mean intuition as perception is accumulated from sensual experience and other functions perceived as a *whole* from derived *parts* remaining unconscious. Intuition in practice is an outline, cartoonish, imperfectly perceived as compared with more accurate sensory perception, direct feeling and logic




triphazex said:


> T.O.F's ... ... This outline of a system you've made could be used to guide A.I. I... A project like this can be used to educate everyone on the consensus of all our knowledge.


TOF = ?




triphazex said:


> I suppose you don't think you're the best example of an INTP so I should go to that link instead? If so I suppose it might be worth a shot. Is this why you're giving me that link? In my opinion, I think it's a waste of time because I've become pretty confident about the idea.


It's your call to get another opinion. I say, keep an open mind.





triphazex said:


> People desire to live as long as they can.


What if they're sick or worn out and confined to bed? Something is missing in what you are trying to say else is missing in my following you.




triphazex said:


> How do INTP's even have goals? I told you why they don't.


An INTP, in reality, is not pure. They mix in the others. If they need to have a goal, they will get one, even if subconscious. Said another way, an INTP's functions are conscious. The other functions are still there but for the most part are unconscious.
============================================

Reply to #625 before you edited it.


triphazex said:


> @BigApplePi I forgot where you mentioned INTJ's can't be given a goal. It's actually the opposite. INTP's can't be given a goal, they can only work on their own systems and don't care about any other motive. If an INTJ's given a goal they like with enough time they'll achieve it. INTJ's put Ni first and use Te to do it. INTP's put Ti first and use short term goals completely for the sake of their systems. I think the function line-up determines that the next function will be used for the sake of the current function and nothing more. The first function cannot be used for the sake of the second function. If an INTP would make systems for the sake of a goal no matter how good their Ti would be they would be using Ne-Ti like an ENTP who's good at Ti.


If I ever said INTJs can't be given a goal, that was a mistake. Allow me a little introspection with my essay as an example. I observed a lot of people talking "consciousness" last year (Se). I had this speculation, a vague intuition that I took this as a challenge (Ni) I would aim a defining it (Ne). I devoted a lot of thinking to this (Ti). I read about what others had to say (Ne-Se). I thought about both the Ne and Se, using Ti, writing down a lot of notes all aimed at a proposed theory to be pulled together later. The goal I had was to firm up a definition explaining and pulling together what others said and removing contradictions. Now I'm faced with lots of notes all disorganized and splashed together. I now have an unpleasant goal of editing to make the essay presentable. l find I am highly reluctant to do it (keep putting it off) unless I can make the editing mostly a satisfying thinking process (Ti ) but at the same time I have to do Te to make it answerable to criticism, both from others and my own.

Can you see the mix of goal operation here? One is the personal goal of coming up with a theory mixed with Fe as another motivation. The other is to edit it which is a downer unless ... I can make it a work of art. I don't know what function is that ... unless it's Si.

Later: This morning on awakening I thought of more for my essay. It was about a better way to answer a question raised by this professor. A "better way " is an INTP goal. Is it Te for INTJ instead? I don't care to distinguish at this point.
==================================


If I'm not mistaken you have rewritten #625. I'll sent this out anyway.


----------



## BigApplePi

Below is a saved reply to what is probably your pre-edited post. It would be better if you make major editings a separate post so I don't have to undo what I've written and not sent out.

Reply to #624:


triphazex said:


> 4.The concept's still a quite reasonable possibility to draw out of the comparison of the two types considering my mountain of evidence that shows how lazy the INTP's are. The fact that they don't get thing's done until their biology goes bad means even if you're on track to die at 120 you'll only start using your inferior functions like Ni when you're 90. It has nothing to do with the abstract age of 70. INTP's trying to change the world at that age would only decrease their life span. They're better of living the rest of their lives as they've always had.


You seem to say a lot about INTPs and age. Where do you get this from? I say there are millions of INTPs and they can differ widely.




triphazex said:


> 5. ... Some types are more intelligent than others. They are scaled. ...


At this point I will say, "Some* people *are more intelligent than others." To me other variations swamp particular types. If you wish to pursue this, go ahead. 




triphazex said:


> No, there are some big solutions to scientific phenomena that are simple. E=mc2. In fact, Albert Einstein said if you can't explain something simply you don't know it that well yourself.


I agree with this ... sort of. Things can be looked at from the top down. That top down description should summarize and be simple. Then one goes from there via analysis if one wishes. This is the case for E = mc² . Last time I looked the formula is a simplification.




__





e=mc2 full equation - Google Search






www.google.com








triphazex said:


> you should explain sentience in your own words.


I prefer to pick my own words to explain. There are too many out there. However I'll give my thought to a piece of sentience.




triphazex said:


> What I'm talking about's something that can never be proven to exist. You could be the only one to exist and everyone and everything you know could just be a hologram.


True, but how "proofy" do you want to get? Solipsism isn't very practical, even if possible! Let's take the taste of an orange. Is that subjective sentience? If so and you taste it, detailed reactions may be close enough to assume they taste similarly for both you and 60 percent of others. 40 percent I grant could have different taste buds.




triphazex said:


> *If there were 2 beings with the same functionality they would have an equal consciousness.* No one can tell who's more sentient but whoever is should be treated better as if they proved they had more functionality like they were more conscious.


Let's not complicate this when we can stick to the taste of an orange. No need to bring in a million other functions.




triphazex said:


> What do you mean by diffusing sensual accumulation?


Excellent question. 


BigApplePi said:


> intuition - diffuse sensual accumulation


By that I mean intuition as perception is accumulated from sensual experience and other functions perceived as a *whole* from derived *parts* remaining unconscious. Intuition in practice is an outline, cartoonish, imperfectly perceived as compared with more accurate sensory perception, direct feeling and logic




triphazex said:


> T.O.F's ... ... This outline of a system you've made could be used to guide A.I. I... A project like this can be used to educate everyone on the consensus of all our knowledge.


TOF = ?




triphazex said:


> I suppose you don't think you're the best example of an INTP so I should go to that link instead? If so I suppose it might be worth a shot. Is this why you're giving me that link? In my opinion, I think it's a waste of time because I've become pretty confident about the idea.


It's your call to get another opinion. I say, keep an open mind.





triphazex said:


> People desire to live as long as they can.


What if they're sick or worn out and confined to bed? Something is missing in what you are trying to say else is missing in my following you.




triphazex said:


> How do INTP's even have goals? I told you why they don't.


An INTP, in reality, is not pure. They mix in the others. If they need to have a goal, they will get one, even if subconscious. Said another way, an INTP's functions are conscious. The other functions are still there but for the most part are unconscious.
============================================

Reply to #625 before you edited it.


triphazex said:


> @BigApplePi I forgot where you mentioned INTJ's can't be given a goal. It's actually the opposite. INTP's can't be given a goal, they can only work on their own systems and don't care about any other motive. If an INTJ's given a goal they like with enough time they'll achieve it. INTJ's put Ni first and use Te to do it. INTP's put Ti first and use short term goals completely for the sake of their systems. I think the function line-up determines that the next function will be used for the sake of the current function and nothing more. The first function cannot be used for the sake of the second function. If an INTP would make systems for the sake of a goal no matter how good their Ti would be they would be using Ne-Ti like an ENTP who's good at Ti.


If I ever said INTJs can't be given a goal, that was a mistake. Allow me a little introspection with my essay as an example. I observed a lot of people talking "consciousness" last year (Se). I had this speculation, a vague intuition that I took this as a challenge (Ni) I would aim a defining it (Ne). I devoted a lot of thinking to this (Ti). I read about what others had to say (Ne-Se). I thought about both the Ne and Se, using Ti, writing down a lot of notes all aimed at a proposed theory to be pulled together later. The goal I had was to firm up a definition explaining and pulling together what others said and removing contradictions. Now I'm faced with lots of notes all disorganized and splashed together. I now have an unpleasant goal of editing to make the essay presentable. l find I am highly reluctant to do it (keep putting it off) unless I can make the editing mostly a satisfying thinking process (Ti ) but at the same time I have to do Te to make it answerable to criticism, both from others and my own.

Can you see the mix of goal operation here? One is the personal goal of coming up with a theory mixed with Fe as another motivation. The other is to edit it which is a downer unless ... I can make it a work of art. I don't know what function is that ... unless it's Si.

Later: This morning on awakening I thought of more for my essay. It was about a better way to answer a question raised by this professor. A "better way " is an INTP goal. Is it Te for INTJ instead? I don't care to distinguish at this point.
==================================

If I'm not mistaken you have rewritten #625. I'll send the above out anyway.



triphazex said:


> INTP's can't be given a goal, they can only work on their own systems and don't care about any other motive.


Of course they have a goal ... a big one: It is to think about all the Ne that comes up.


----------



## BigApplePi

Dupe post


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> You seem to say a lot about INTPs and age. Where do you get this from? I say there are millions of INTPs and they can differ widely.


 Because they don't get motivated until they're pressured. They won't get pressured to do anything as big as the INTJ until it's too late when they know their death's certain. Don't make me explain why they get stuck in their first 2 functions for the 6th or 7th time. I'm probably understating the number of times I've explained it to you still for you to not find a reason that nullifies my case when judging the intellect. Pain's a signal of death. You can't get pressured by anything more than death. Other lives can be added to the equation if you aren't a solipsist. INTP's are only different due to their nurture. Nature is strictly based on the MBTI in our argument. No one else is using any other personality theory and the INTP won.
Tell me why they've won after I've defined intellect or disprove my definition of intellect. Use your Si and connect Intelect and Immortality like I keep connecting together for you to do. You disprove the immortality argument; you disprove my definition of intellect. I told you they're connected and gave reasons and you insist they're not. Why? There better be a valid reason cause you seem like more of an ENTP, concerned with wordplay, than me.
You don't seem to remember variables unless they're all located in every sentence. If I had to do that they'd all be considered really long run-ons. This can't be a reason for forgetfulness or the amount of information that can be transmitted would be limited.



BigApplePi said:


> At this point I will say, "Some* people *are more intelligent than others." To me other variations swamp particular types. If you wish to pursue this, go ahead.


You need to explain your variations and your unpure types. What are you saying you think I'm pursuing through what you've quoted?



BigApplePi said:


> I agree with this ... sort of. Things can be looked at from the top down. That top down description should summarize and be simple. Then one goes from there via analysis if one wishes. This is the case for E = mc² . Last time I looked the formula is a simplification.
> e=mc2 full equation - Google Search


The point is, it's a formula instead of a set of words. Maybe the formula is so big it can only be described as a set of words. If so I'd explain it enough to show the possible connections. The bigger and more obscure an algorithm is the bigger the description must be to show all the possible parts. If I knew what everything meant in E=mc2 I'd be willing to explain the full equation if you told me its technical side. I think I'll choose to recreate the equation by recreating reality in a simulation instead. That's another way of knowing everything instead of getting a degree in math. I could ask my mom too since she got a bachelor's in math for the fun of it.



BigApplePi said:


> I prefer to pick my own words to explain. There are too many out there. However I'll give my thought to a piece of sentience.


 If you don't know all the words you use you can't be conversed with. An unknown word is an unknown piece of code. It will give a compiler error.
A piece of sentience? Never heard that before. You mean separated senses like the visual and auditorial giving different qualia. Is this what you mean? Sentience's a center for qualia just like our body's a center for senses.



BigApplePi said:


> True, but how "proofy" do you want to get? Solipsism isn't very practical, even if possible! Let's take the taste of an orange. Is that subjective sentience? If so and you taste it, detailed reactions may be close enough to assume they taste similarly for both you and 60 percent of others. 40 percent I grant could have different taste buds.


If I say something can't be proved I'm saying any method you use to do so is most likely impractical and probably impossible. We're on the same page. why do you think we're disagreeing?



BigApplePi said:


> Let's not complicate this when we can stick to the taste of an orange. No need to bring in a million other functions.


The taste of an orange has to do with qualia, not sentience.



BigApplePi said:


> By that I mean intuition as perception is accumulated from sensual experience and other functions perceived as a *whole* from derived *parts* remaining unconscious. Intuition in practice is an outline, cartoonish, imperfectly perceived as compared with more accurate sensory perception, direct feeling and logic


 Your explanation sounds no better than textbook intuition. Just call it intuition. These words you've used to describe it's too broad to program. Some more specific words that are better for that task would be, simplification, pattern-sensing, possibility creation, and thought-organization, they all mean the same thing.
This function from A.I uses the same logic that turns animations into 60 fps. It senses patterns and guesses how the blank frames may appear. You can use it for in-between frames or frames from the past or future. Possibility creation is the best way to describe this process in my opinion. It contrasts with sensing which uses what's consistent.



BigApplePi said:


> TOF = ?


Theory of Everything



BigApplePi said:


> It's your call to get another opinion. I say, keep an open mind.


 It's just that what I'm saying seems like hard math. I don't know why you disagree. This is a good example of what I mean when I say an algorithm needs a medium as good as it is. If the self-proclaimed smartest personality can't disprove me no one can. Opinions are formed due to a lack of info from one side. I haven't learned anything from talking to you except for how bad I can diss an INTP in front of them and get away with it. What info am I lacking? If I'm not lacking info you must be.
I think I'm INTJ because I understand them and they still prove to be the smartest personality. This would be another point up for the INTJ. They win the argument, they're more patient, and they do it all while dissing the INTP because the INTP truly agree with those statements. Not proving anything until it's too late to apply yourself, you really agree with that? That's a lack of intellect in every perspective. As for that "me being an INTP" post I'm on the younger side of things so you can't say I'll always live such a disorganized life. Don't just say INTP's can be different in nature for the nth time and not explain it using the MBTI function stack. 
You either bring up something you've written somewhere else as a textbook definition, meaning it's a set of related words with no meaning, like an ISTJ. Your definition of intuition needs work. You use Fi-Ne because you don't explain your systems. What do you mean, unpure INTPs?



BigApplePi said:


> What if they're sick or worn out and confined to bed? Something is missing in what you are trying to say else is missing in my following you.


~~


triphazex said:


> People could suffer in the afterlife for reasons, perhaps, undiscoverable. Like dissolving, then floating around till it's the end of the universe. Only for there to be a new one. They'd also have to wait for all the other lucky parameters to live again. You could have a cycle of new lives almost never to have a chance like this. To be as happy as you could be for so long. You can believe you have control over this life but not the next; unless its existence is scientifically proven, it's possible to control so you can make yourself happy throughout it, and to ensure any others after are the same way. If this is true, or you're not cut out to achieve this, you can reason with death.


~~
A near-unlimited amount of pain is definitely a good price to pay for an unlimited amount of pleasure.



BigApplePi said:


> An INTP, in reality, is not pure. They mix in the others. If they need to have a goal, they will get one, even if subconscious. Said another way, an INTP's functions are conscious. The other functions are still there but for the most part are unconscious.
> ============================================
> 
> Reply to #625 before you edited it.


Yeah, I said I'm talking about the pure versions multiple times before. What personality theory will you use to make them unpure?



BigApplePi said:


> If I ever said INTJs can't be given a goal, that was a mistake. Allow me a little introspection with my essay as an example. I observed a lot of people talking "consciousness" last year (Se). I had this speculation, a vague intuition that I took this as a challenge (Ni) I would aim a defining it (Ne). I devoted a lot of thinking to this (Ti). I read about what others had to say (Ne-Se). I thought about both the Ne and Se, using Ti, writing down a lot of notes all aimed at a proposed theory to be pulled together later. The goal I had was to firm up a definition explaining and pulling together what others said and removing contradictions. Now I'm faced with lots of notes all disorganized and splashed together. I now have an unpleasant goal of editing to make the essay presentable. l find I am highly reluctant to do it (keep putting it off) unless I can make the editing mostly a satisfying thinking process (Ti ) but at the same time I have to do Te to make it answerable to criticism, both from others and my own.
> 
> Can you see the mix of goal operation here? One is the personal goal of coming up with a theory mixed with Fe as another motivation. The other is to edit it which is a downer unless ... I can make it a work of art. I don't know what function is that ... unless it's Si.
> 
> Later: This morning on awakening I thought of more for my essay. It was about a better way to answer a question raised by this professor. A "better way " is an INTP goal. Is it Te for INTJ instead? I don't care to distinguish at this point.
> ==================================
> 
> If I'm not mistaken you have rewritten #625. I'll send the above out anyway.


 A better way? What's a better goal to achieve besides immortality? The definition is quite specific. You're either an observer, who has the ability to change all of existence, given enough time or not.
Art is math through our senses. Visual art is obviously math represented through sight. Music is math represented by sound. There are many different types of art we could define, as many as the senses we could define for ourselves.
Your Ni is too bad to follow. If you don't have a goal to flip the whole world upside down just stay in your head until you do. I honestly wouldn't care about any essay unless it was as fundamental to our understanding as it was easy to understand. The algorithms I care about most will be coupled with the art I use to explain them. I don't think they'll be limited by an essay.
Minecraft didn't get popular because an essay was written on it. It's medium was explaining it was through a game. It doesn't even have to be a game. It could be a website like the MBTI. I think a paper that merges the Jungian theory with some other concepts has a pretty contingent existence. This is another reason why the INTJ's smarter than the INTP. INTJ's will always have their contingency plans.



BigApplePi said:


> Of course they have a goal ... a big one: It is to think about all the Ne that comes up.


If you think about all the Ne that comes up in time the Ne will have to turn to Ni.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> Because they don't get motivated until they're pressured. They won't get pressured to do anything as big as the INTJ until it's too late when they know their death's certain. Don't make me explain why they get stuck in their first 2 functions for the 6th or 7th time. I'm probably understating the number of times I've explained it to you still for you to not find a reason that nullifies my case when judging the intellect. Pain's a signal of death. You can't get pressured by anything more than death. Other lives can be added to the equation if you aren't a solipsist. INTP's are only different due to their nurture. Nature is strictly based on the MBTI in our argument. No one else is using any other personality theory and the INTP won.
> Tell me why they've won after I've defined intellect or disprove my definition of intellect. Use your Si and connect Intelect and Immortality like I keep connecting together for you to do. You disprove the immortality argument; you disprove my definition of intellect. I told you they're connected and gave reasons and you insist they're not. Why? There better be a valid reason cause you seem like more of an ENTP, concerned with wordplay, than me.
> You don't seem to remember variables unless they're all located in every sentence. If I had to do that they'd all be considered really long run-ons. This can't be a reason for forgetfulness or the amount of information that can be transmitted would be limited.


You've put too many things into that at once. I prefer one item at a time. If we are going to discuss something, I prefer a linear progression, not one where I have to search back to see what you said only to find something ambiguous. I receive all you say as an intuitive summary, not what is better a logical progression with the intention of progress.




triphazex said:


> You need to explain your variations and your unpure types. What are you saying you think I'm pursuing through what you've quoted?


I conjecture that comparing intelligence in individual people is possible but not one entire type compared against the other. * I define intelligence as the ability to do stuff.* Every type does something different. I don't care to compare those type differences because I see no reason why each type can't do their special something as well as the other type. People, on the other hand, on not restricted to cognitive functions. They can do things as a whole. Differences will stand out better I say because individuals have a variation greater than types, type being a group.




triphazex said:


> The point is, it's a formula instead of a set of words. Maybe the formula is so big it can only be described as a set of words. If so I'd explain it enough to show the possible connections. The bigger and more obscure an algorithm is the bigger the description must be to show all the possible parts. If I knew what everything meant in E=mc2 I'd be willing to explain the full equation if you told me its technical side. I think I'll choose to recreate the equation by recreating reality in a simulation instead. That's another way of knowing everything instead of getting a degree in math. I could ask my mom too since she got a bachelor's in math for the fun of it.


Let me know should you ask your mom anything.




triphazex said:


> A piece of sentience? Never heard that before. You mean separated senses like the visual and auditorial giving different qualia. Is this what you mean? Sentience's a center for qualia just like our body's a center for senses.


Yes.




triphazex said:


> The taste of an orange has to do with qualia, not sentience.


My understanding is an orange has qualia but an orange is an example of something detected by sentience. What is it that you think can't be shown to exist? Are you saying sentience can't reasonably be shown to exist? I say it can. I observe my cat is alive possessing sentience. That observation is adequate.




triphazex said:


> Your explanation sounds no better than textbook intuition. Just call it intuition. These words you've used to describe it's too broad to program.


So? Why do you bring up "programming." Is that what you want? What's wrong with my definition? If you mean computing, computers are not ready for intuition.




triphazex said:


> This function from A.I uses the same logic that turns animations into 60 fps. It senses patterns and guesses how the blank frames may appear. You can use it for in-between frames or frames from the past or future. Possibility creation is the best way to describe this process in my opinion. It contrasts with sensing which uses what's consistent.


Why did you post this? Is this the answer to something?




triphazex said:


> You either bring up something you've written somewhere else as a textbook definition, meaning it's a set of related words with no meaning, like an ISTJ. Your definition of intuition needs work. You use Fi-Ne because you don't explain your systems. What do you mean, unpure INTPs?


My definition of Intuition stands and appears in #628. What do I mean by definition? A word's meaning is expanded into more words. Think dictionary. Then each of those words will need a definition until they are grounded on something concrete and agreed upon. Think "top-down." It's up to you to ask which words you want clarified.

By "unpure INTPs" I mean in the real world INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe which if considered "pure" is not used in perfect conscious order of priority. Furthermore the four "shadow" functions can be used. Functions are not meant to have rigid boundary definitions. Instead their meaning is diffuse.




triphazex said:


> What personality theory will you use to make them unpure?


I use the MBTI as home base for concepts.




triphazex said:


> A better way? What's a better goal to achieve besides immortality?
> 
> I think a paper that merges the Jungian theory with some other concepts has a pretty contingent existence. This is another reason why the INTJ's smarter than the INTP. INTJ's will always have their contingency plans.


Feel free to aim at immortality. If my essay ever gets out there I will label myself an INTJ, lol.




triphazex said:


> If you think about all the Ne that comes up in time the Ne will have to turn to Ni.


Yes.


----------



## Rift

INTJs have a greater likelihood of being successful... 

though at what cost? 

anecdotal, of course, but know too many that inevitably succumb to pressures towards family and traditional lifestyles. admirable to an extent but often they lose much of themselves in the process. The social disconnect between desire and the pressures to socially conform. . . be accepted. again, seen too many clinging to bad relationships or attempting to seek approval where it will never be met. 

intp have a greater tendency to be late bloomers, and of course, roughly half never bloom at all. I'd say they tend to hold onto divergent thinking longer, remain more inquisitive and possess a wider scope of knowledge.. but rarely is this as specialized as the intj. socially, everything comes to them a bit later, if at all. . . but they're more apt to be content than not and I'd argue more adaptable, and for the good or bad of it, without losing themselves in the process... but the biggest loss in the exchange is the motivation to keep up with forward momentum.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> You've put too many things into that at once. I prefer one item at a time. If we are going to discuss something, I prefer a linear progression, not one where I have to search back to see what you said only to find something ambiguous. I receive all you say as an intuitive summary, not what is better a logical progression with the intention of progress.


 It's your fault for not doing things one at a time. All this time I've just been answering your questions. You've just been pointing out things that could only be pointed out through wordplay. All these concepts you're supposed to be asking are supposed to be looping back to the questions from the beginning of our discussion. You just had to go deeper, deeper, deeper, and deeper, until no amount of Si could save you.
All I was doing was opening up the functions you had questions about. In the MBTI sense and the program sense. Maybe you should have picked something you had the biggest problem with specifically and nothing else. You thought you could group my posts, believing they all had their own problem. That's very idealistic. What matters most are the beginning posts. Once you solve the first question from it you move to the next question you had a problem with within the beginning post.

Think of it as a program with a bunch of functions that need to be scoped on to understand the math behind them and what that math connects to. For an INTP I'm surprised you never thought of it like this. The more wordplay you use to narrow down on what I mean the harder it will be to understand my functions because you're asking for a permutation of an algorithm rather than the algorithm. I'll always try to explain the algorithm but it's always obscured by its permutation and your wordplay. Go back and ask me where did you have fun with how the words sounded together and I'll tell you it's every time you insisted an INTP was capable of doing something after we agreed they couldn't due to a broader function.
I'm receiving everything your saying the same way your receiving everything I'm saying. This is why I said we both have systems, they're just so different they're incompatible. Somewhere these systems may get close to bridging the gap but both of us are so sure of our terms somewhere that we don't question their validity. This doesn't have to do with matters like how the MBTI works. I think it has to do with you agreeing with thing's you don't know what you're agreeing too. I think you lead with Fi-Ne. Fi works off of values or noise, depending on the model, instead of a system. You just agree with whatever sounds good without looking back to see if that sentence had any math connected to 3 before. Good Si can not only do that but work from many posts before. You don't have to have the best Si but Ti will make up for it. You know what statements matter due to their role in your system

I might want to call you ENTP because I'm struggling to see how you could have tertiary Si. I think INFP's most likely because you never put anything you or I say into a system. That'd explain why I see no Si from you. You still might be INTP it's just we can't bridge our 2 systems since they're so different. In order to explain myself, I'd have to do it through action. Hopefully one day I might explain the mind through A.I and I'll show everyone how dumb the theoretical INTP is. It doesn't matter how much I say, how I say it, how simple I say it, I can't get my point across. Through programming it, at least people will know there's a system in what I'm saying. There are many systems to explain it but based on time people should settle on one. The conversation proves to not be a good medium for explaining this battle.
Why do you Insist INTP's are unpure in real life without giving another personality theory. The INTP is less intelligent than the ESFJ by only using the MBTI. The INTP at best due to another personality theory mixing with the MBTI can be smarter than the INTJ, Socionics specifically. Maybe you need to explain what an unpure INTP is a bit better. Pure INTPs can use inferior functions. they just have to be really old for them to be used due to INTP's specifically being trapped in their 2 functions more than any other type. The real-world needs every function, the mind doesn't. You're torturing me by making me explain it more than 10 times. Almost everything you say needs me to explain this concept again. You're just waiting for me to say something weird due to the lack of ways something can be explained so you can use wordplay on it in order to win the argument. You aren't using a system. Anyone with a system should have caught this system of patterns already.



BigApplePi said:


> I conjecture that comparing intelligence in individual people is possible but not one entire type compared against the other. * I define intelligence as the ability to do stuff.* Every type does something different. I don't care to compare those type differences because I see no reason why each type can't do their special something as well as the other type. People, on the other hand, on not restricted to cognitive functions. They can do things as a whole. Differences will stand out better I say because individuals have a variation greater than types, type being a group.


 I think the opposite. I'd generally go broad then narrow. You seem to be going narrow then broad much like an INTJ. Intelligence isn't the ability to do stuff. A dragon can exert more force than a human but that doesn't mean it's more intelligent. What stuff it does do matters. I've told you the way everything is weighted in terms of intelligence is how likely something is to become immortal. There are more intelligent branches of evolution than others. I've heard dolphins have a bigger brain to body ratio than us but they aren't considered more intelligent. Why do you think that is?
Dolphins can't survive through interstellar conquest. You can say some alien species may not have as big of a brain as we do but if they get hold of the technology from a post-apocalyptic world to do interstellar conquest you could call them more intelligent than us due to their ability to put us in check. Our bigger brains are a significant factor in determining intelligence though. You don't need a brain to be intelligent, you just need to seem like you have one.
The ability to do stuff is a good rationalization but not as good as immortality. The ability to turn mass into energy or vice versa is good but it won't matter if it's used to blow up a region of a galaxy no one knows about. You could argue by becoming immortal we will obtain all the power and by saying that you're correct. The ability to do stuff is judged on the metric of immortality.

I don't know if you're trying to become more INTJ because you realize how smart they are but the INTP is really smart too. You just can't rely on the MBTI alone. The INTP is incomplete if you only use that theory. If they're complete in any way due to the MBTI they're complete garbage. Based on my system they're indisputably the worst type at everything including intelligence, 0*500=0. A Socionincs INTP 5w6 513 rivals an INTJ with these other typings in my opinion. I might say I could be role modeling after these types cause why wouldn't I do that for the types I perceive as the best?



BigApplePi said:


> Let me know should you ask your mom anything.


Of course, you don't care about the simulation. You care about what your more certain you can comment on. Is this ISTJ behavior or INTP? I hope you can tell this question isn't supposed to be prioritized as important. Do you really think what I'm diverging into could be relevant to the discussion? If so, explain why. I'm discombobulated on why you'd keep this strand of our conversation going. I'm not the one who'd suffer from keeping this string going. It'd be you cause I don't have a problem with Si unlike you.



BigApplePi said:


> Yes.


 Then call it qualia. A piece of sentience is qualia. A piece of our sensing system is a sense. Qualia cannot be an observer just like how a sense cannot be an observer. Our sensing system is an observer just like how sentience is. Our sensing system is the empirical form of sentience. We can add x-ray detection to our sensing system but if it's unknown about its sentience. I could say more on this matter to separate the 2 but it doesn't seem relevant to the conversation and after talking to you, you're just going to get confused and do your wordplay antics instead of focusing on solving this problem we're having in this paragraph. Agreed? I'm going to say it anyway.
The ability to imagine a pain so great without communicating it's what makes the concept of sentience and the sensing system diverge in such an extreme way. It's philosophically the reason life tries to avoid death. The avoidance of death is primarily due to the pain that may come after. I'm going to call you out if you say this is religious or something like that again. Use your Si. Being able to balance Ti-Ne- and Si is why you're considered the smartest personality. I don't have a problem with it and you think I'm an ENTP so why do you?

I also hope you know this response to your "yes" is all unimportant to the discussion. I don't trust that you're going to loop back to the more fundamental questions you started asking from which means all of this is pointless. You didn't learn anything, I didn't learn anything. You have bad Si and bad Ti. I've learned how bad I can talk trash to an INTp in front of them and have them agree with it all and now I've learned how bad an INTP may be at using Ti and Si. I have figured out your patterns but you haven't for mine. If you're unable to use Ti- and Si you can't be conversed with and you shouldn't call yourself an INTP.
I'd reckon INFP. INFP's are considered the second worse in society and Fi doesn't mean you care about others. It means you work on your values and noise instead of a system. INFP's aren't good at using or creating systems like you've shown. They cant have their words held unto by anything. Nothing's strict with them. You keep going back and forth on "what you mean" when you're just trying to win the conversation using witty enough wordplay and exhausting my vocabulary quickly by forcing me to explain a concept 10 times. You can make something sound good in so many ways by using Fi rather than Ti due to how loose the function is.

It doesn't help if the outcome of these polls has already been decided. No matter my logic, you just need to say something witty and you win. If I say something based on pure wit like how the INTP will be too busy becoming the best at candy crush instead of making theoretical equations that can be used in real life cause they're bad at real life so they won't seem intelligent due to it, it'll just be taken as a joke an you'll still win. You can say INTJ's will use their Ni on becoming the best speedrunner in candy crush so their area of intelligence will be so narrow that they won't seem intelligent and you'll win.
These are dumb arguments cause they don't get to the root of an issue. They just cause even dumber questions like "What if the INTJ decided to speedrun life". It'd turn this into a conversation of who can do the wittiest points. No real system is based on that.



BigApplePi said:


> My understanding is an orange has qualia but an orange is an example of something detected by sentience. What is it that you think can't be shown to exist? Are you saying sentience can't reasonably be shown to exist? I say it can. I observe my cat is alive possessing sentience. That observation is adequate.


 I'm not going to re-explain things to cover up someone's Si. Orange's arent sentient, they have no qualia, they cannot be detected by sentience, they cannot be detected by qualia. They can only be detected by the senses. Sentience and qualia cannot detect anything. They're just unproven consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less. I've said you can assume your cat is sentient but you can't prove it. The only way to prove something to be sentient is to be it.
Even if you've cloned yourself you can't prove your clone to be sentient. If something isn't you it isn't sentient. If you haven't seen through the eyes and experienced the brain activity of something else it isn't sentient. Who knows how sentient your cat must be. If you'd switch bodies maybe the pain it goes through and its response to that pain may be greatly exaggerated.
It is imaginable to be half of someone else. The systems used to make it possible vary but it's imaginable. Based on that metric you can't say you've proven another to be sentient unless you're them by a percentage. I don't think this has to do with the topic of our conversation just like the last few responses.



BigApplePi said:


> So? Why do you bring up "programming." Is that what you want? What's wrong with my definition? If you mean computing, computers are not ready for intuition.


Can you read my whole post before answering the question? Everything I say's an interconnected system. What I said immediately after explains my statement. You can't just say computers aren't ready for intuition. You must explain why and make fun of me in the process. I've said before that you need to be extreme in your responses if you wish to win the argument because it makes a concept more obvious. Just saying something doesn't work doesn't help. I don't know why you don't see what I'm going to say. Computers have been able to predict things like the 60 fps system I've mentioned immediately after. Your definition is needlessly complex. Make it a word and make it simple and digestible. Diffuse? What part of intuition has to do with spreading over a large area? That sounds like Feeling making thought spread out in order to make it less rigid and more entropic.
Programming is Math V.2.0. I've explained why I while ago when it comes to its ability to be sensually stimulating. If you ask me where that only proves your bad Si, this is a test, I show you where all my proof comes from all the time. I think I'm going to give up on this conversation cause you don't put anything I say into a system. You don't explain why you think things are the way you think they are. You use Te for me to interpret instead. Your Ne seems good at first but then it becomes obvious your misusing it cause it's just going to be used for wordplay without Si and Ti. You sound like a Fi-dom cause you're Ne isn't strong enough.



BigApplePi said:


> Why did you post this? Is this the answer to something?


The timings perfect to show how bad you are at Si. Maybe it's a bit too disrespectful but I think it fits the situation enough to do a 🤦‍♂️.



BigApplePi said:


> My definition of Intuition stands and appears in #628. What do I mean by definition? A word's meaning is expanded into more words. Think dictionary. Then each of those words will need a definition until they are grounded on something concrete and agreed upon. Think "top-down." It's up to you to ask which words you want clarified.
> 
> By "unpure INTPs" I mean in the real world INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe which if considered "pure" is not used in perfect conscious order of priority. Furthermore the four "shadow" functions can be used. Functions are not meant to have rigid boundary definitions. Instead their meaning is diffuse.


 We agree on using google to figure out terms and associate them with what we think they are in real life with respect to their synonyms. I'm doing that with everything I'm saying. I've literally google searched every word I've used but I bet you haven't for yours. You need diffusion to travel through the function stack? It doesn't look like you searched up the meaning of that word on google first.
Everything you say has had an answer I've given before. I'm going to start taking my quotes from before. I think they're set up well enough where I can answer your questions to the quotes with more quotes in that fashion forever. You said Intuition has to do with diffusion. Now you're saying you need intuition to travel through the function stack?! I'm not even going to go deeper into that. That's just flat out wrong, anyone can agree.
~~
my Pure-INTP, only uses the intellect to run away from pain when procrastination obviously caught up to them. That due to stress because that's the only time the other functions are ever used.
~~



BigApplePi said:


> I use the MBTI as home base for concepts.


You're not answering the question. Explain what you mean by a home base for concepts. Try predicting everything I'll ask of you when you say stuff instead of using Te. It'll make this conversation go much faster. I'll obviously ask how you define home base due to how broad it sounds. I could say it means you only use the MBTI so you agree with my inferior INTP or it means you use another theory like Socionics even though you want to limit the scope to the MBTI. It sounds like your using this word as a way to say you can win the conversation as long as it' uses words from the MBTI and it's witty. You're not based on a system; You're based on witty concepts. When I expose the shallowness of everything you say you retreat to your broad words, terms, and values of intelligence and the subject without knowing what any of it actually means in the grand scheme of things. This position causes people to side with you because it relies on people's general consensus. The general consensus is that INTP's are smarter. As long as you do this I can't walk away as a winner of the conversation. I'm fighting an uphill battle. All I've learned is how misleading a self-typed INTP can be.
~~
This doesn't have to do with matters like how the MBTI works. I think it has to do with you agreeing with thing's you don't know what you're agreeing too. I think you lead with Fi-Ne. Fi works off of values or noise, depending on the model, instead of a system. You just agree with whatever sounds good without looking back to see if that sentence had any math connected to the one before.
~~



BigApplePi said:


> Feel free to aim at immortality. If my essay ever gets out there I will label myself an INTJ, lol.


I'd want to call this an example of your wit but you're actually are staying pretty close to my system here.



BigApplePi said:


> Yes.


Good, we agree that you were wrong about them thinking about the large amount of Ne that will come up later, no? This is what you're agreeing to. If not, stop trying to throw my system around and see where it goes instead so you can invalidate my system using itself. That's how you actually prove a system wrong.


----------



## tanstaafl28

I don't think this is that. 

INTJs are extremely organized, intelligent, and methodical. They tend to be more application-oriented. 

INTPs are similarly organized, intelligent, and logical, however, I would say they are more theoretical-oriented. 

So it depends on what you're looking for.


----------



## BigApplePi

tanstaafl28 said:


> NTJs are extremely organized, intelligent, and methodical. They tend to be more application-oriented.
> 
> INTPs are similarly organized, intelligent, and logical, however, I would say they are more theoretical-oriented.


xNTPs are more intelligent in traveling.
xNPJs are more intelligent in arriving.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> It's your fault for not doing things one at a time.


Looks like I'm to blame for a lot of things.




triphazex said:


> You just had to go deeper, deeper, deeper, and deeper, until no amount of Si could save you.


Help. I dug myself a hole. Save me! Save me!




triphazex said:


> Maybe you should have picked something you had the biggest problem with specifically and nothing else. You thought you could group my posts, believing they all had their own problem. That's very idealistic. What matters most are the beginning posts. Once you solve the first question from it you move to the next question you had a problem with within the beginning post.


My biggest problem has evolved. It is communicating with you. All else I have pretty much well in hand. One thing: if you wish to reference something in an early beginning post, I would ask you to either quote something specific from it and provide that link. That would help keep things together. BTW when I ask a question of you, it is not because I don't have a handle on some answer, but rather to see what you can do to shed more light on it. It's a conversation between people for an exchange of values.




triphazex said:


> This is why I said we both have systems, they're just so different they're incompatible.


That is a nice way of putting it. People are allowed to have different systems. They can provide enlightening perspectives. The thing is, how can each "system" be expressed, perhaps concisely and precisely enough to communicate between different people? Simple examples help to clarify. Example of two systems: 
(1) Looking at a room from top to bottom.
(2) Looking at a room from door to window (or left to right).
Both systems will work but they are different. They have things in common but are different enough to make comparisons worth while. Sometimes they ARE worthwhile.




triphazex said:


> you never put anything you or I say into a system. That'd explain why I see no Si from you. You still might be INTP it's just we can't bridge our 2 systems since they're so different.


Systems can be complex. This is a conversation. Currently my vision is to hear what you have to say rather than present any system of my own. What would you say to one "system" at a time? Yours. I hear you. I make comments in order to clarify. Then you respond when my comments make no sense. Doing two systems at once creates a mess.




triphazex said:


> I might want to call you ENTP because I'm struggling to see how you could have tertiary Si.


Do you expect me to respond to this or are you just expressing yourself? No need to answer. You have the option of not saying anything at all and waiting to see if you can figure this out for yourself. This could simplify the conversation.




triphazex said:


> Why do you Insist INTP's are unpure in real life without giving another personality theory. The INTP is less intelligent than the ESFJ by only using the MBTI. The INTP at best due to another personality theory mixing with the MBTI can be smarter than the INTJ, Socionics specifically. *Maybe you need to explain what an unpure INTP is a bit better.* Pure INTPs can use inferior functions. they just have to be really old for them to be used due to INTP's specifically being trapped in their 2 functions more than any other type. The real-world needs every function, the mind doesn't. You're torturing me by making me explain it more than 10 times. Almost everything you say needs me to explain this concept again.


This may not help but I'll try. It's the word "pure" that is key here. I'm not constructing any theory. Another word for pure is precise. The opposite is fuzzy or diverse. That's all. This truth applies to most anything, not just personality. theory. I have a theory about this. I can point you to it but it is a long essay written in 2010. Ask.




triphazex said:


> I think the opposite. I'd generally go broad then narrow. You seem to be going narrow then broad much like an INTJ. Intelligence isn't the ability to do stuff. A dragon can exert more force than a human but that doesn't mean it's more intelligent. What stuff it does do matters. I've told you the way everything is weighted in terms of intelligence is how likely something is to become immortal. There are more intelligent branches of evolution than others. I've heard dolphins have a bigger brain to body ratio than us but they aren't considered more intelligent. Why do you think that is?
> Dolphins can't survive through interstellar conquest. You can say some alien species may not have as big of a brain as we do but if they get hold of the technology from a post-apocalyptic world to do interstellar conquest you could call them more intelligent than us due to their ability to put us in check. Our bigger brains are a significant factor in determining intelligence though. You don't need a brain to be intelligent, you just need to seem like you have one.
> The ability to do stuff is a good rationalization but not as good as immortality. The ability to turn mass into energy or vice versa is good but it won't matter if it's used to blow up a region of a galaxy no one knows about. You could argue by becoming immortal we will obtain all the power and by saying that you're correct. The ability to do stuff is judged on the metric of immortality.


I defined intelligence as *the ability to do stuff*. You are going on about concrete things. My style is to make an abstract general statement (think top-down) that covers everything. Instead of asking me what "stuff" meant, you went on to show contradictions and put forth ideas to your personal interest. That was okay, yet still you didn't ask me to define more detail on what I said. This is an example of a failure to communicate because we are talking different levels.




triphazex said:


> I'm not going to re-explain things to cover up someone's Si. Orange's arent sentient, they have no qualia, they cannot be detected by sentience, they cannot be detected by qualia. They can only be detected by the senses. Sentience and qualia cannot detect anything. They're just unproven consciousness. Nothing more, nothing less. I've said you can assume your cat is sentient but you can't prove it. The only way to prove something to be sentient is to be it.
> Even if you've cloned yourself you can't prove your clone to be sentient. If something isn't you it isn't sentient. If you haven't seen through the eyes and experienced the brain activity of something else it isn't sentient. Who knows how sentient your cat must be. If you'd switch bodies maybe the pain it goes through and its response to that pain may be greatly exaggerated.
> It is imaginable to be half of someone else. The systems used to make it possible vary but it's imaginable. Based on that metric you can't say you've proven another to be sentient unless you're them by a percentage. I don't think this has to do with the topic of our conversation just like the last few responses.


One thing about about INTPs often said is they like to be accurate or precise.* Ti can aim for that. If we are reading the other person without being more precise about the meaning and usage of the other's words, or even if such words could use better words (think qualia, sentience) we are in for trouble.

Anyway I will address the cat example. My cat is not me so proving sentience won't be easy. I can observe the cat though. I can see a lot of behavior where the cat is like me but different from a rock. Listing all that behavior won't be proof but it helps. (What about "life"? Would you agree the cat is alive?) We don't have to call this proof. We could rename it as quasi-proof or approaching proof or fuzzy proof. This is the scientific method. Should later we find a contradiction, we throw out the "proof" and look for something better. Cat reference: #6 .

*This includes being precise about being imprecise. Think statistics. Statistics is about revealing uncertainty.




triphazex said:


> Can you read my whole post before answering the question? Everything I say's an interconnected system.


I will see what I can do. What I do see is you talk so many topics that no way can I explain everything. It would be better to address one thing at a time and see if we can agree before moving on.

I will stop here.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> I defined intelligence as *the ability to do stuff*. You are going on about concrete things. My style is to make an abstract general statement (think top-down) that covers everything. Instead of asking me what "stuff" meant, you went on to show contradictions and put forth ideas to your personal interest. That was okay, yet still you didn't ask me to define more detail on what I said. This is an example of a failure to communicate because we are talking different levels.


 I did say how you're statement could work. "You could argue by becoming immortal we will obtain all the power and by saying that you're correct." Immortality validates the amount of power someone could use but the amount of power someone could use, the ability to turn mass into energy, does not validate immortality. Maybe you mean it's the ability to recreate any concept in reality. Immortality validates the ability to do anything by 100% and the ability to do anything only makes the achievement of immortality more probable by an unsettled amount.
Immortality is like giving a computer infinite ram. You can play Conway's game of life on there and every combination possible will happen. Being able to do anything in Conway's game of life has already been achieved due to being Turing Complete. It just hasn't been proven. The ability to do anything needs a goal to prove it exists. This fades into more complex subjects like the time it'd take to get a response done and whether the time from any subjective view matters. All these questions are answered with the term immortality. Not the ability to do anything.
If you become immortal, you will do everything to show you have the power to do anything. If you have the power to do anything it doesn't mean you will do everything because abilities are more synonymous with "capabilities" than immortality is. This means it is less likely to prove itself than immortality will. Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Immortality doesn't have this problem but the ability to do anything does. The ability to do anything can get rid of all observers for eternity, including yourself. Things exist based on observers. Immortality makes sure there will at least be one observer.
With infinite time hypothetically something will happen. If you decide to kill everyone with the ability to do anything it's a done deal. Because you're gone anything can happen once again and you'd have no control over it. Why should the system give you control even if you were aware of it. Whatever's defined you has been destroyed so you no longer have that power.
The most general term to describe intelligence would be immortality. The ability to do stuff is something that would be in one's personal interest. Immortality exists for everyone's interest. If you ask me why I'll have to bring up a quote of how I explained immortality. Anything that's a statement has been explained before. This's my UNO-reverse on what you thought was a personal interest bias. Your turn.



BigApplePi said:


> This may not help but I'll try. It's the word "pure" that is key here. I'm not constructing any theory. Another word for pure is precise. The opposite is fuzzy or diverse. That's all. This truth applies to most anything, not just personality. theory. I have a theory about this. I can point you to it but it is a long essay written in 2010. Ask.


Tell me your theory.



BigApplePi said:


> One thing about about INTPs often said is they like to be accurate or precise.* Ti can aim for that. If we are reading the other person without being more precise about the meaning and usage of the other's words, or even if such words could use better words (think qualia, sentience) we are in for trouble.
> 
> Anyway I will address the cat example. My cat is not me so proving sentience won't be easy. I can observe the cat though. I can see a lot of behavior where the cat is like me but different from a rock. Listing all that behavior won't be proof but it helps. (What about "life"? Would you agree the cat is alive?) We don't have to call this proof. We could rename it as quasi-proof or approaching proof or fuzzy proof. This is the scientific method. Should later we find a contradiction, we throw out the "proof" and look for something better. Cat reference: #6 .
> 
> *This includes being precise about being imprecise. Think statistics. Statistics is about revealing uncertainty.


I have read all your other posts and I have to say the first 2 are the only ones that matter. I may just be trying to cutting them off since I, unfortunately, have school to do now. I think we agree with all the other posts it's just a matter of our different attitudes used to approach the problem. I approached the sentience problem with the best way to prove it in theory while you went for the most practical way to prove it. You keep reiterating the points I know you'll have like how you say the cat has similar traits to you which is how you know it's sentient. I've predicted what you had to say so you can listen to my posts more carefully.
~~


triphazex said:


> sentience will be decided based on interpretation as long as we have our biological desire to help those who function like us despite their inner-workings.


~~
Your quasi-proof sounds like how I explained this
~~


triphazex said:


> A line must be drawn based on our limitations to help those who are similar to us. Cows will be considered less sentient than us. Rocks will be considered much less sentient.


~~
If we could become other beings to judge their sentience instead of looking at their functionality we would. The functionality we would primarily be judging would be the pain one feels by living in the body of the other.


----------



## Sybow

Smarter or generally more intelligent?

Because you don't somehow get smart. You work your way to it. And working towards being smart can do any type, as long as you have an interest in it.


----------



## BigApplePi

Your paragraph on power and immortality deserves more than I am able to give at this time. 

Comment:
If you're going to talk up immortality, it might do well to mention mortality. Mortality is a very real part of life when we see death. There is life, growth, decline and death. These renew and occur in cycles.




triphazex said:


> Tell me your theory.


This is in reference to the word, "pure."  Understanding Made Simple
Go down to 5. FUZZINESS . 

Do you think this was written by either an INFP or an INFJ?



triphazex said:


> I, unfortunately, have school to do now.


Work and school come before these conversations. When you get more time perhaps I can introduce you to other threads where you might get other's perspectives over my limited ones.




triphazex said:


> If we could become other beings to judge their sentience instead of looking at their functionality we would. The functionality we would primarily be judging would be the pain one feels by living in the body of the other.


There is a word used to judge the sentience of another. It's called "empathy."
_noun_
noun: *empathy*

the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.


----------



## Zaitzev

Surrounded by INTX, went for INTP. Very smart and got a bunch knowledge and information. INTJ are just financially goal driven people, but again anyone can do that if they want to. But being a smart nerd reading books, google and fathom very in depth knowledge? I would throw up, salute.


----------



## HAL

BigApplePi said:


> My example of the leaves was a bit extreme. Your pendulum was simpler. Here is another simple one. The three body problem. Gravitational behavior between two bodies follows a simple Newton formula. The behavior of a third body does not. It adds another dimension which has me thinking of points on a cube versus on a square.
> ==========================================
> 
> Anyway, the topic of cause and effect bothers me a little. To illustrate cause and effect, think falling dominoes. This is more of that than you may be willing to put up with:
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the question. Do two dominoes further down a forked line affect each other? That is, can one falling affect the other falling. "Not likely", you say.
> 
> The problem is in defining "cause" and defining "domino." What is a domino besides having a upright position?
> 
> This an idea hard for me to express. I would like to claim any upright domino in any position can cause another in the same situation to fall. It has to do with the thesis that correlation is not the same as causation. They may not be the same in ordinary meaning but there is a causation aspect. How so?
> 
> A domino has the property of gravitational presence. All dominos everywhere. That presence is a part of a cause, the other parts being at least position and being pushed. A domino will not fall in outer space. It just floats. The Earth and the domino belong to each other. A domino falling is not just falling but has this gravitational property. This mean another domino will fall due to it also having this property. I'm not saying this well. The idea I'm after is in the end that everything affects everything else. Is there a way to express this that offers *proof*?


Yeah it might be quite hard to express haha, I don't really follow.

It's possible to express cause and effect for a lot of things, until there are too many middle points and variables getting in the way and chaos ensues

And by chaos I mean mathematical chaos, i.e. the physics still holds but it gets too difficult to perform a true calculation. The best example of this is in fluid dynamics, where physics is forced to use equations which define 'fluid parcels' moving smoothly, instead of analysing every molecule of fluid in the system, because that would required trillions of calculations for each one.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> The concept of entropy ...


The concept of entropy is not all its cracked up to be I say. That is because doesn't it operate assuming a system with no energy input? In practice there is no such thing. How can one really isolate a system? This means outside energies will mess with such a system preventing entropy.


----------



## BigApplePi

HAL said:


> Yeah it might be quite hard to express haha, I don't really follow.


I'll try again sometime. It has to do with a theory that everything, even at the quantum level, affects everything else. Perhaps another dimension exists we don't see. I've read (superficially) about quantum theory but never understood what they were talking about.


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> I have a degree in theoretical physics and now work professionally as a software developer. Don't try to lecture me on anything relating to maths, physics, programming, thermodynamics or anything else, because I assure you I am already lightyears ahead.
> 
> The reason I say I don't understand what you're on about is because _I do not understand what you're on about_. I feel like I'm having a discussion with a 15 year old. What level of education have you obtained in maths, physics, or programming?
> 
> When I tell you that your use of the root2 approximation in your RNG algorithm is pointless and arbitrary, I'm not trying to have an argument, I'm just telling you how it is.


 Credentials don't solve problems; Credentials are given to those who solve problems. I've explained this to BigApplePi when he tried to say He's right concerning INTP's being smarter than INTJ's cause he said so due to his credentials. That being, working in math, programming, and whatever else for 30 years. If I had the credentials of Albert einstein, enabling the creation of nuclear bombs and many other futuristic endeavors I'd not mention it. I'd take what gave me the credentials instead of taking the credential into a new issue. I think solving problems with credentials is actually immature. That or you're ISTJ cause INTJ's also don't like it when people use an appeal from authority.
I doubt your lightyears ahead. I compare myself to people like Einstein. I plan to be greater. I'm young with a masterplan strung together with great ideas. I feel spoiled with how much time I have to achieve it, that being my entire life. Even if I didn't feel spoiled I'd still have to aim greater than the greatest because who knows the horrors after death. I aim for immortality and no one has disproved why I shouldn't. It's the meaning of life and whatever type achieves it first is the most intelligent because they'll achieve whatever intelligence could possibly mean.

Are you actually explaining why I'm wrong? You're not. "I'm just telling you how it is." is not an explanation. "Pointless" and "Arbitrary"? Why? Cause your authorities said so when you plugged it into a random math question from your linear regression exam? You've only said statements and they're the same statements you've said before, only said differently. They do not elicit new information. You refuse to tell me why I'm wrong. If there's no reason why I'm wrong then I'm not wrong.

Also, can you please go read everything Pi and myself's discussed? You're making the same mistakes as him. If you do that you'll have a better chance of beating whatever I say. You 2 seem like-minded enough for you to learn my behavior easier from reading our older posts.


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> Yeah it might be quite hard to express haha, I don't really follow.
> 
> It's possible to express cause and effect for a lot of things, until there are too many middle points and variables getting in the way and chaos ensues
> 
> And by chaos I mean mathematical chaos, i.e. the physics still holds but it gets too difficult to perform a true calculation. The best example of this is in fluid dynamics, where physics is forced to use equations which define 'fluid parcels' moving smoothly, instead of analysing every molecule of fluid in the system, because that would required trillions of calculations for each one.


@me if you want my input for your posts. Cause I can't tell if you do since you're only mentioning BigApplePi. There's no equation a L.O.D algorithm can't fix. At least in a general sense. More computational power is always good though. Explaining this's why I'm saying to call me if you find your problem to disprove my case, only if it's to disprove my case though. I'm centered around the official discussion.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> Credentials don't solve problems; Credentials are given to those who solve problems.


I'll buy that except don't credentials show that quite a few hard tests have already been passed?


QUOTE="triphazex, post: 44119822, member: 560102"]
I compare myself to people like Einstein. I plan to be greater. I'm young with a masterplan strung together with great ideas. I feel spoiled with how much time I have to achieve it, that being my entire life. Even if I didn't feel spoiled I'd still have to aim greater than the greatest because who knows the horrors after death. I aim for immortality and no one has disproved why I shouldn't. It's the meaning of life and whatever type achieves it first is the most intelligent because they'll achieve whatever intelligence could possibly mean.[/QUOTE]
I find that quite ambitious. I wish you luck. Do you have any credentials at present in the form of ideas you can outline, even if they aren't formal, that tell you can achieve or at least pursue these goals?


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> The concept of entropy is not all its cracked up to be I say. That is because doesn't it operate assuming a system with no energy input? In practice there is no such thing. How can one really isolate a system? This means outside energies will mess with such a system preventing entropy.


What does this have to do with irrational numbers? You're so broad. Maybe you should explain yourself some more so I see how I'm wrong. It sounds like you're saying entropy doesn't exist. At least give a term to this entropy that has no syntropy so this concept can be further debated.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> I'll buy that except don't credentials show that quite a few hard tests have already been passed?


No, it shows nothing. There are just questions, correct answers, and answers that don't solve *everything* that has been asked for. Why do you differ?

QUOTE="triphazex, post: 44119822, member: 560102"]
I compare myself to people like Einstein. I plan to be greater. I'm young with a masterplan strung together with great ideas. I feel spoiled with how much time I have to achieve it, that being my entire life. Even if I didn't feel spoiled I'd still have to aim greater than the greatest because who knows the horrors after death. I aim for immortality and no one has disproved why I shouldn't. It's the meaning of life and whatever type achieves it first is the most intelligent because they'll achieve whatever intelligence could possibly mean.
[/QUOTE]


BigApplePi said:


> I find that quite ambitious. I wish you luck. Do you have any credentials at present in the form of ideas you can outline, even if they aren't formal, that tell you can achieve or at least pursue these goals?


 Plans too long because I break down my steps until they can't be broken down anymore. I got it in a mind-map on my phone. It can go deeper than 10 levels. It's a conglomerate of a plan to take over the world and a theory of everything so I can do so. I'll try to summarize the most notable levels in order. I plan on first making a simulation of everything using a L.O.D algorithm. Once it's complete it should surpass Minecraft in sales and popularity. I use the sales to buy scientific equipment. Most importantly an electron microscope and things that can work on that level such as lasers so I can develop nanotechnology. The popularity would be used to clear up my theory of everything with researchers. If I get to this point I've got it good and my life was worth living.
The basic premise for the second half of the plan is to push the edge of science due to the resources I get from my T.O.F software. I begin to make broader steps due to the barriers that the software will fix. Such as curing every illness related to aging by teaching nanobots to balance the length of any telomere they find. It's pretty easy to see how I could lay out options at this level to take over the world. I plan to turn the world into a playground with nanobots.


----------



## HAL

triphazex said:


> @me if you want my input for your posts. Cause I can't tell if you do since you're only mentioning BigApplePi. There's no equation a L.O.D algorithm can't fix. At least in a general sense. More computational power is always good though. Explaining this's why I'm saying to call me if you find your problem to disprove my case, only if it's to disprove my case though. I'm centered around the official discussion.


Please, child, just piss off. I was replying to BigApplePi. That's why I quoted his post and wrote a reply, to him, and not you.

You're like a two year old child vying for the adults' attention.



triphazex said:


> Credentials don't solve problems; Credentials are given to those who solve problems. I've explained this to BigApplePi when he tried to say He's right concerning INTP's being smarter than INTJ's cause he said so due to his credentials. That being, working in math, programming, and whatever else for 30 years. If I had the credentials of Albert einstein, enabling the creation of nuclear bombs and many other futuristic endeavors I'd not mention it. I'd take what gave me the credentials instead of taking the credential into a new issue. I think solving problems with credentials is actually immature. That or you're ISTJ cause INTJ's also don't like it when people use an appeal from authority.
> I doubt your lightyears ahead. I compare myself to people like Einstein. I plan to be greater. I'm young with a masterplan strung together with great ideas. I feel spoiled with how much time I have to achieve it, that being my entire life. Even if I didn't feel spoiled I'd still have to aim greater than the greatest because who knows the horrors after death. I aim for immortality and no one has disproved why I shouldn't. It's the meaning of life and whatever type achieves it first is the most intelligent because they'll achieve whatever intelligence could possibly mean.
> 
> Are you actually explaining why I'm wrong? You're not. "I'm just telling you how it is." is not an explanation. "Pointless" and "Arbitrary"? Why? Cause your authorities said so when you plugged it into a random math question from your linear regression exam? You've only said statements and they're the same statements you've said before, only said differently. They do not elicit new information. You refuse to tell me why I'm wrong. If there's no reason why I'm wrong then I'm not wrong.
> 
> Also, can you please go read everything Pi and myself's discussed? You're making the same mistakes as him. If you do that you'll have a better chance of beating whatever I say. You 2 seem like-minded enough for you to learn my behavior easier from reading our older posts.


I already told you why using root2 in a random number generator is pointless and arbitrary. It's because you're using a numerical approximation of root2, which is not random in any way, shape or form.

Your behaviour is frankly childish and erratic. You throw big words around to sound smart but it isn't working here, because I know what those words mean and you don't. Thermodynamics, entropy, quantum whatever... I would bet all my money on you having zero formal education in any of those areas. It isn't just about credentials, it's about three full fucking years of hard, solid, rigorous training on all those topics at the cutting edge of the field. I can't believe you can be so childish and arrogant as to think "_I'm young and I have high hopes_" is enough of a foundation to give your assertions more merit than my own. You're embarrassing yourself.

I think you should look up and carefully examine the theory and meaning behind the Dunning Kruger effect.


----------



## HAL

triphazex said:


> Plans too long because I break down my steps until they can't be broken down anymore. I got it in a mind-map on my phone. It can go deeper than 10 levels. It's a conglomerate of a plan to take over the world and a theory of everything so I can do so. I'll try to summarize the most notable levels in order. I plan on first making a simulation of everything using a L.O.D algorithm. Once it's complete it should surpass Minecraft in sales and popularity. I use the sales to buy scientific equipment. Most importantly an electron microscope and things that can work on that level such as lasers so I can develop nanotechnology. The popularity would be used to clear up my theory of everything with researchers. If I get to this point I've got it good and my life was worth living.
> The basic premise for the second half of the plan is to push the edge of science due to the resources I get from my T.O.F software. I begin to make broader steps due to the barriers that the software will fix. Such as curing every illness related to aging by teaching nanobots to balance the length of any telomere they find. It's pretty easy to see how I could lay out options at this level to take over the world. I plan to turn the world into a playground with nanobots.


Haha. This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my life.

I'm done with this conversation. With the shit you've just said here, you have displayed such astounding ignorance and naivety, I cannot waste any more time on you.

I won't even close with a 'good luck', because your plan is frankly so utterly ridiculous that you need to drop it right now and move onto something else.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> Plans too long because I break down my steps until they can't be broken down anymore. I got it in a mind-map on my phone. It can go deeper than 10 levels. It's a conglomerate of a plan to take over the world and a theory of everything so I can do so. I'll try to summarize the most notable levels in order. I plan on first making a simulation of everything using a L.O.D algorithm. Once it's complete it should surpass Minecraft in sales and popularity. I use the sales to buy scientific equipment. Most importantly an electron microscope and things that can work on that level such as lasers so I can develop nanotechnology. The popularity would be used to clear up my theory of everything with researchers. If I get to this point I've got it good and my life was worth living.
> The basic premise for the second half of the plan is to push the edge of science due to the resources I get from my T.O.F software. I begin to make broader steps due to the barriers that the software will fix. Such as curing every illness related to aging by teaching nanobots to balance the length of any telomere they find. It's pretty easy to see how I could lay out options at this level to take over the world. I plan to turn the world into a playground with nanobots.


Do you plan to take enough school courses to learn enough to go after your goals? May I ask your current level of schooling? Would you learn at a college or learn on your own? What books, internet or other knowledge sources are you using right now? Also do you hope for a coach or mentor to help you out? You cannot achieve what you are after alone, can you?


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> Please, child, just piss off. I was replying to BigApplePi. That's why I quoted his post and wrote a reply, to him, and not you.
> 
> You're like a two year old child vying for the adults' attention.


You show a lot of mixed messages. I had to ask. I wouldn't have asked this if you wouldn't have assumed I was going to respond to the previous post you gave to BigApplePi. I see no other way around getting to know you. I'm asking questions so I know the boundaries you assume I have. everyone's different. The worst people like Hitler went into power and Thomas Edison was "too cool for school", nothing's as it seems. Anyway, that's just my haphazard philosophy on the matter.


A "no, don't intrude on others' conversations please" would be good.


HAL said:


> I already told you why using root2 in a random number generator is pointless and arbitrary. It's because you're using a numerical approximation of root2, which is not random in any way, shape or form.
> 
> Your behaviour is frankly childish and erratic. You throw big words around to sound smart but it isn't working here, because I know what those words mean and you don't. Thermodynamics, entropy, quantum whatever... I would bet all my money on you having zero formal education in any of those areas. It isn't just about credentials, it's about three full fucking years of hard, solid, rigorous training on all those topics at the cutting edge of the field. I can't believe you can be so childish and arrogant as to think "_I'm young and I have high hopes_" is enough of a foundation to give your assertions more merit than my own. You're embarrassing yourself.
> 
> I think you should look up and carefully examine the theory and meaning behind the Dunning Kruger effect.


It is, you're just too bureaucratic. You need to change your type from INTP to XSXJ. Who cares about the identifiers, it's all about the math. Some identifiers are the same as others so we need to distinguish them.* Irrational numbers are more related to random behavior than rational numbers. *I've given you an example through my code. What example have you given me? None. The approximation of root2 is what makes it random, what are you going on about? If it's infinite there's as much data as there is a lack of data. It's just a number and/or symbol √ 2. Which actually isn't very much data. It's as Pi said, you need to embrace the concept of the limiter. The limiter goes up as the technological capabilities increases.

You need to learn to explain things more. Especially if you're going around as an INTP. Saying "I has credentials so you're wrong" like the SJ you actually are doesn't solve everyone's problems. Problems are based on reality, not credentials. If credentials limit the amount of information that can be given credentials shouldn't exist, to begin with.
​You can use the square root in many ways. I've told you one and the existence of it's what matters. Not that there's another way to use the square root of 2. I don't know why you don't understand that. There's the square root of 2 used for angles then there's the square root of 2 used for RNG. Call it pseudorandom, whatever, I haven't found a reason to call it that yet because for all intended purposes it's random. Looking back on you saying the square root of 2 having an algorithmic twist I wouldn't say going really far along the number line is one but you can call it one. If you had no prior knowledge of root2 it would be random. That's why it's important to distinguish the kind with an algorithmic twist and one without. I hope I've cleared up my explanation on the square root of 2 being random.


You're right to bet all your money on that. I'm genuinely surprised you'd know me to that degree. I don't think college in all the edges of those fields is required. I'll just attempt to recreate reality as I see it through a simulation cause going through all the semantics from education is bs, it's also obviously a risky endeavor because higher-education costs whether you win or fail.

I'll aim towards creating a simulation that can represent what's going on through what I think's most likely going on aided by whatever I find on the internet. If the professors hate it I'll probably change it. The ability to actually see and hear everything will boost the learning process due to immersion and because of that, it'd be more likely that any associate of mine would be on the same page.
​If the projects a success maybe I can afford higher education without risks, whatever will help my project stay close to reality ought to be thought about. I'll test my theory of everything in reality for the sake of immortality.

Why do you think I'm embarrassing myself. I'm just putting out ideas and asking you *what actually invalidates my statements. no logical fallacies such as an appeal from authority*. My statement has been applied through code, how can you invalidate it? You've told me how the square root of 2 isn't random if you know the algorithm. Instead of distinguishing my meaning of random from yours you just called me wrong without explanation. I understand why you say it may need an algorithmic twist, because one may know the algorithm. Do you understand why I said it doesn't need an algorithmic twist? Someone may not know the algorithm. The random behavior from irrational numbers and the ignorance one has regarding its equation needs to be distinguished. I hope you desire a better Ne. I'm willing to learn more about how your mind works.
​Being young's the biggest advantage. Time's the most precious resource, which is another reason why the meaning of life's immortality. I bet you're used up and never had any ideas like mine. Everyone baffles me for never even mentioning they were like me at a point in their life. You have those entitled young adults that say they're gonna make the biggest cookie dough industry but I'm not in the same category, am I? Am I somehow going to find out my plans are as short-lived as society says? I don't think I have that type of plan. You don't even understand my plan, don't you? This realization has actually only further proved I'm not in the same category. I don't expect an SJ like you too anyway. Your SJ tendencies are the only thing useful you've proven throughout our conversation.


I know about the Dunning Kruger effect. There was someone who posted it not too long ago on this forum too. I've experienced it before with a lot of things I've done such as game design.

All I'm saying is I have a path. I'm not saying I'll actually go through with it but it seems to be my end-all-be-all. I'll have to go through with it as if I was going to hell for not achieving it. I don't feel like I actually know so much but I do have an outline to follow and brush up as I go along with it. Do you think I'm going to come back two years; and say, "all my plans have failed and I'm a total loser"? That's not how it works and that's pretty ENTJ. That's how you're treating my concept.
​It's the long arduous journey towards a goal, not a part of it. It's like self-improvement but it's directed towards what all goals should be after, personal, instead of the hollow shell of terms used to describe good ones, traditional.


What do you think of my extra spaces? I can't break up some paragraphs without it.
@BigApplePi what do you think of my extra spaces. I'm asking you cause HAL's said he wanted to leave.


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> Haha. This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my life.
> 
> I'm done with this conversation. With the shit you've just said here, you have displayed such astounding ignorance and naivety, I cannot waste any more time on you.
> 
> I won't even close with a 'good luck', because your plan is frankly so utterly ridiculous that you need to drop it right now and move onto something else.


Honestly, as long as my immortality argument stands I don't have a choice. If you hear that and explain why it's ridiculous then I'll drop it immediately and move onto something else. I'm not explaining it after the number of times I had so you'll have to get caught up with what I and Pi have discussed from the very beginning. The number of pages our discussion has taken should tell you how many times I've covered it, Pi has yet to disprove me. Maybe you should go, though; you've proven to know nothing pertinent to the conversation, I speculate you make insulting statements to cover up your lack of knowledge. Why can't you be a bit more polite like Pi?


----------



## HAL

@triphazex

A random number generator for you which I wrote up in 10 minutes.



C#:


public static double GetRandomNumber()
{
       Guid randId = Guid.NewGuid();
       var sha256 = System.Security.Cryptography.SHA256.Create();
       var hash = sha256.ComputeHash(randId.ToByteArray());
       var hashLength = hash.Length;
       int selectionIndex = (int)Math.Round(DateTime.Now.Minute / 60d * hashLength);
       return hash[selectionIndex] / 255d;
}

You can test it here: C# Online Compiler | .NET Fiddle

Just click the 'Run' button at the top of the screen, then the output appears in the console window at the bottom part of the screen.

It works because GUIDs are unique for all intents and purposes, so you're guaranteed a different hash every time. After hashing, I grab a value from the resultant byte array, which is selected based on the current time on the user's machine (this step isn't even necessary for creating the end result - it's just an extra step for 'increased randomness'), and then divide by 255 because the max value of a byte is 255. The result is a random number between 0 and 1.

The most important part is that the GUIDs are unique, so you're guranteed a different value every time. Like yours, this is also probably pseudo random, because there will be some underlying mechanism by which the GUIDs created. However, it's a hell of a lot more random than using the numerical approximation of root2.

There are 2^128 distinct GUIDs - more than there are stars in the universe.

There is only 1 approximation of root 2.

And when you hurl things around like "You must be SJ" it only makes you look more like you have no idea wtf you're on about.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> Do you plan to take enough school courses to learn enough to go after your goals? May I ask your current level of schooling? Would you learn at a college or learn on your own? What books, internet or other knowledge sources are you using right now? Also do you hope for a coach or mentor to help you out? You cannot achieve what you are after alone, can you?


You should read what I said to @HAL. Everything above depends in their own ways. I'm getting a formal education in IT right now. I'm using CrashCourse, Wikipedia, and anything else I find on the internet that can further my research. Notch didn't need 40 years in universities to make Minecraft. I'm not sure if you want to say I plan on becoming successful on my own. Simply, if it seems like others can help I'll use others. Maybe along the line, I'll get a coach or mentor. If the reservoirs of resources are running dry I'll look for other resevoirs. As I said, all of the above depends.

In general, what I'm seeking requires time. Time is the most precious resource. That's why I have to ask how good is this plan in general. What would be the benefits of seeking something lower? And, how will those benefits measure up to possible horrors after death? It seems I know the answer and everyone else does too, no? Is there anything I'm missing from the system I've described?


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> @triphazex
> 
> A random number generator for you which I wrote up in 10 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> C#:
> 
> 
> public static double GetRandomNumber()
> {
> Guid randId = Guid.NewGuid();
> var sha256 = System.Security.Cryptography.SHA256.Create();
> var hash = sha256.ComputeHash(randId.ToByteArray());
> var hashLength = hash.Length;
> int selectionIndex = (int)Math.Round(DateTime.Now.Minute / 60d * hashLength);
> return hash[selectionIndex] / 255d;
> }
> 
> You can test it here: C# Online Compiler | .NET Fiddle
> 
> Just click the 'Run' button at the top of the screen, then the output appears in the console window at the bottom part of the screen.
> 
> It works because GUIDs are unique for all intents and purposes, so you're guaranteed a different hash every time. After hashing, I grab a value from the resultant byte array, which is selected based on the current time on the user's machine (this step isn't even necessary for creating the end result - it's just an extra step for 'increased randomness'), and then divide by 255 because the max value of a byte is 255. The result is a random number between 0 and 1.
> 
> The most important part is that the GUIDs are unique, so you're guranteed a different value every time. Like yours, this is also probably pseudo random, because there will be some underlying mechanism by which the GUIDs created. However, it's a hell of a lot more random than using the numerical approximation of root2.
> 
> There are 2^128 distinct GUIDs - more than there are stars in the universe.
> 
> There is only 1 approximation of root 2.
> 
> And when you hurl things around like "You must be SJ" it only makes you look more like you have no idea wtf you're on about.


 There are more irrational numbers than there are in the universe. I gave the square root of 2 as the most simple example. You ought to remove the algorithmic twist to clear up your equation. You need to know the underlying mechanism for a GUID to explain how to make random behavior using a root of an irrational number without decimals. Pointing to a prewritten script, a GUID doesn't solve the problem. Knowing how to make that script from basic algebra is of the most importance, hiding that is hiding information. Hiding information will certainly make it more random due to having no prior knowledge as I've mentioned before. So will not knowing the equation behind the decimals of the square root of 2. Also, I've read about GUIDs and they use external means such as your address and things of that nature. That disqualifies it from competing with the root of 2. You'd need to know how the universe's started in order for it to become an algorithm so it can compete.

You're also not supposed to prove root 2 is the best RNG. You're supposed to prove that *it's possible to make random behavior using a root of an irrational number without decimals. *I've discussed other means of entropy such as external factors like computer temperature and quantum noise. Computer time fits in that category. As long as you can manipulate any pixel of a screen however you want there is no functionality that you can only learn in a university. Flexing terms like GUID's without knowing how they're made only proves you're SJ even more.

Why does calling you an SJ make you think I don't know what I'm talking about. I've been giving proof every time I mention it. You don't Show Ne or prove to have Ni. You constantly talk about how dumb I sound as if you're new to the conversation instead of piecing together my sentences from my paragraphs. Pi did this too once, just go back to the complete beginning of the discussion and you might make it easier for the both of us. You also like talking about your qualifications or showing traits you've learned from them. You prove to have a lot of Si and you show it through Te and Fe.


----------



## LostHaven

@triphazex what's going to happen after you invent a way to become immortal? Are you going take it? Are you going to sell it? If you become then what?


----------



## HAL

@triphazex The underlying creation method behind GUIDs is as irrelevant as the floating point logic behind every number you use. Do you understand floating point arithmetic? GUIDs are statistically unique, that's all we need to know. It isn't a flex to say that.



> You're also not supposed to prove root 2 is the best RNG. You're supposed to prove that *it's possible to make random behavior using a root of an irrational number without decimals. *


I'm... not trying to prove anything at all. I've told you about 5 times that decimal approximations of irrational numbers are not specially useful for random number generation in any way. You're just too pig-ignorant to see it.

I think what you're really looking for is some kind of noise generator, where you use decimal approximation of root 2 to create the appearance of random noise because there's no order or repetition to the numbers being used.

But that isn't random at all. Literally none of what you have said or demonstrated is about random number generation. I wrote out your code. It creates a numerical approximation of root 2. *IT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE*. So why you ever showed me this in relation to random number generation, I truly have no idea.

Please stop calling me SJ. It's a nonsense ad-hominem and vastly incorrect.


----------



## triphazex

LostHaven said:


> @triphazex what's going to happen after you invent a way to become immortal? Are you going take it? Are you going to sell it? If you become then what?


 If I'm sure it works I'd obviously take it. I only see it getting suspicious if I become the oldest man alive. Am I going to sell it? There are so many variables that could come into play. It depends on how public my progress is because that's what will cause society to respond more than anything else. 

Immortality could be banned, you could trade it reproductive capability. Everyone could have it. Their response depends on technological progress and political tact. Advancements like how successful nanobots are in other ways would be extremely important.

If I become then what? What? I can do whatever I want and take as much time as I want. It's hard to assure immortality so I'd need to look at interstellar threats. I'd also need to push the edge of science in order to go deeper into the world of the infinitesimal.


Curious to know your thoughts.


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> @triphazex The underlying creation method behind GUIDs is as irrelevant as the floating point logic behind every number you use. Do you understand floating point arithmetic? GUIDs are statistically unique, that's all we need to know. It isn't a flex to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm... not trying to prove anything at all. I've told you about 5 times that decimal approximations of irrational numbers are not specially useful for random number generation in any way. You're just too pig-ignorant to see it.
> 
> I think what you're really looking for is some kind of noise generator, where you use decimal approximation of root 2 to create the appearance of random noise because there's no order repetition to the numbers being used.
> 
> But that isn't random at all. Literally none of what you have said or demonstrated is about random number generation. I wrote out your code. It creates a numerical approximation of root 2. *IT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE*. So why you ever showed me this in relation to random number generation, I truly have no idea.
> 
> Please stop calling me SJ. It's a nonsense ad-hominem and vastly incorrect.


We just have different systems. I'm not stupid. 
~~


triphazex said:


> Math is actually more flexible than you think. I've figured out explanations to make 2+2 = 5 and how to make even numbers come after even numbers. Short answer: number-bases. Making another counting system, using the number-line of course, makes things even more flexible.


~~
How about we distinguish "random" and "no order-repetition"? No order-repetition is random if you don't know the algorithm, root2; No order-repetition is ordered if you know the algorithm. What's a word for "if you don't know the algorithm", ignorance? Help me out, this will solve it. Not my problem but figuring out our 2 different systems for explaining random behavior.


Can you prove you're not SJ so I at least have a reason to call you INTP besides your qualifications? Nx is concerned with possibilities, not the past. Nx also doesn't make statements, it explains things. It may seem like Ni makes statements but that's actually only due to the function after it. I'm not seeing any Ni though.


----------



## HAL

triphazex said:


> How about we distinguish "random" and "no order-repetition"? No order-repetition is random if you don't know the algorithm, root2; No order-repetition is ordered if you know the algorithm. What's a word for "if you don't know the algorithm", ignorance? Help me out, this will solve it. Not my problem but figuring out our 2 different systems for explaining "random" behavior.


The word you're looking for is disorder. 

Root 2 is not random, ever. The result you get from your "random number generator" code is the same every time.



> Can you prove you're not SJ so I at least have a reason to call you INTP besides your qualifications? Nx is concerned with possibilities, not the past.


Your knowledge of MBTI is clearly about as broad as your knowledge of maths, physics and programming. Limited, whimsical and made-up.


----------



## LostHaven

triphazex said:


> If I'm sure it works I'd obviously take it. I only see it getting suspicious if I become the oldest man alive. Am I going to sell it? There are so many variables that could come into play. It depends on how public my progress is because that's what will cause society to respond more than anything else.
> 
> Immortality could be banned, you could trade it reproductive capability. Everyone could have it. Their response depends on technological progress and political tact. Advancements like how successful nanobots are in other ways would be extremely important.
> 
> If I become then what? What? I can do whatever I want and take as much time as I want. It's hard to assure immortality so I'd need to look at interstellar threats. I'd also need to push the edge of science in order to go deeper into the world of the infinitesimal.
> 
> 
> I'd like to know what you think.


I'll be honest I'm against the idea of immortality. I don't think humanity is ready for such a thing, for example look at nuclear energy it was thought as being the future for humanity. Then we made it into a bomb to destroy our enemies and now it's a spectre that hovers over of all of us. Even today it's a threat. J oppenheimer and other scientist all brilliant, geniuses who worked on the Manhattan project thought they were helping humanity then you get the famous J oppenheimer speech 



 (I'm sorry if that was off topic but I find nuclear bombs and incidents endlessly interesting)

I think that if you or someone else invents a way to become immortal, the wealthy 1% will show its strength immediately I mean why wouldn't they want it? only a fraction of humanity will have it then, these people could help people right now but don't because greed. Another thing that could happen is that you get people like martin shkreli who will put a price on it so high that only a few people can afford.it
Another problem is that your body is still fragile, if you fell from a building you'll live but everything else will be crushed beyond repair, with time it might repair but you'll useless while you're waiting. The other thing is that your brain would still have limits.
Another problem is that it wouldn't change people, people will still be cruel to others and pointless wars will happen. Eventually you'll watch as humanity gets destroyed as the earth turns into another Venus by the sun's heat when it transforms into a big red giant Will Earth survive when the sun becomes a red giant? that's if we don't achieve interstellar travel, we might just blow ourselves up before then and cause a nuclear winter. Eventually even blackholes will disappear leaving you in complete darkness, with that no life will be able grow. There is plenty of theories on how the universe will end but I'm not smart enough to comprehend them still thing though. You probably already knew this

All this might sound overlly cynical but history has taught me that humans can awful with power and smart people with good intentions can make grave mistakes.


----------



## triphazex

HAL said:


> The word you're looking for is disorder.
> 
> Root 2 is not random, ever. The result you get from your "random number generator" code is the same every time.


 Can you respond after I upvote your post, please? I wasn't done. I just gave an example of how anything one says can have a logical explanation. That would've been good to hear before you made your post.

So not knowing root2 is the same as disordering it? I don't know about that, you tried and I value that. The result is only the same if you restart the code. Even then, the result is not the same if you start the algorithm where it ended last. Also, there's the concept of a seed. In the end, any algorithmic twist will only create a new seed. At one point the processing power will cause a restart to unfold. This is why you say it isn't random and you turn to external factors?

For classical computing, this may be true. You have to consider how far we can memorize information for quantum systems though. This will cause root2 to rival external means for producing randomness. The difference would be the need for seeds. Even after this concept do you still think the square root of 2 isn't random If we figure out the origins of the universe? External means wouldn't be random anymore either.

The word disordered works on most occasions. I suppose you can say you're either dealing with a disordered root2 or you're unaware of root2. Scrolling through root2 and never restarting it doesn't sound disordered though. Can you make a term for a scrolled root2? I might be being picky with my terminology by this thing called "scrolled-root2". This seems like 3 terms to settle on instead of calling root 2 random, no?

It's all about how accurate a system is to reality. And the systems I've made work well. How do they not? You don't disprove arguments by attaching adjectives to them. If so, I could just say your word "disorder" is dumb, win, and move on, despite needing to prove my system works. You've been explaining yourself a bit better but it still needs a little more work.


I hope describing our different systems by breaking the word random down into 3 terms settles our disagreement. These aren't terms found anywhere so I don't see how you'd be satisfied if I started out using them. Everything's just an equation. Whatever we find random's only a part of a bigger equation we don't know. Once quantum technology gets there root2 would be a better way to produce randomness than the classical universe due to being able to simulate multiple universes at once. This should show you a good reason why it's fundamental in producing randomness.

If the universe can't be expressed with an equation then your point has a solid stance due to it being more random than root 2 could ever be. Who knows if it's infinite? There's also the awareness one has when labeling randomness. And then there's how biased someone maybe for noise or the lack of it. The universe may simply not be noisy enough or vice-versa.

These algorithms are done using the arrangement of the universe but in order to distinguish them, you can't arrange anything in the universe to root2. Are you calling me stupid cause root 2 has to be made in the universe? How do you distinguish the 2?! that's pretty stupid and quite INTJ cause you didn't even explain that that was your case. I don't think you have Ni so you couldn't have meant this.

So there are 4 questions. Do you think the universe's infinite, no? Are you in any way biased towards the noise, no? Do you care about someone's awareness when describing randomness, no? Do you care about using pieces of the string of bits to make a larger number, no? If you said no to all of those then the square root of 2 is more random than external means due to quantum technology. I don't think you're biased towards the noise, I'm not either. You might actually care about one's awareness cause you used GUIDs without fully understanding them.


Do you care about reusing old information to make the number larger? At what point is it no longer random? Don't you just have to represent the biggest number? Don't you just have to have a string of 0's with a one at the end? Reusing old information to make the number larger seems like it'd work better for root2 instead of external means anyway.

I've never tried it but I have an idea. You could also use fractals or some fractal-like algorithm where you root every prime digit in root2 from left to right. That means after the current number's too big to calculate, causing the computer to slow down, you can move to the next one. The square root of 2 has been calculated to the trillions so if you square that by doing the same to every number in it you get 1e+24. Not as big as the GUID. Maybe there's room for more characters? Going over 9 characters is still square rootable with prime numbers.

Anyway, I think they're just talking about the number of unique identifiers. That depends on the number of digits you have and the number of characters. The number of characters might not matter. Are you trying to find a method to get the most unique identifiers? You can take the biggest byte and go through all its permutations, it's equivalent to a hash. This is used to store memory. It's not for randomization.

Randomization can use a previous permutation. It just has no order in doing so. Has anything I've said explained what you're on about? No combination of these answers has solved my question. That being can the square root of 2 be done without decimals? If something I've said is what you're saying here tell me please so we can narrow down on the issue and figure out where our difference lies.



HAL said:


> Your knowledge of MBTI is clearly about as broad as your knowledge of maths, physics and programming. Limited, whimsical and made-up.


I don't know about personality theory? Do you know about Socionics, the Enneagram, and the Tritype? How researched do you think you are on those subjects? Also, something's only made up if it doesn't portray reality. You still haven't explained how anything I've said doesn't portray reality unless you think an external mean will always be over an algorithmic mean as I've explained before. A correct answer without an explanation is a wrong answer. It doesn't obey causality.


----------



## triphazex

LostHaven said:


> I'll be honest I'm against the idea of immortality. I don't think humanity is ready for such a thing, for example look at nuclear energy it was thought as being the future for humanity. Then we made it into a bomb to destroy our enemies and now it's a spectre that hovers over of all of us. Even today it's a threat. J oppenheimer and other scientist all brilliant, geniuses who worked on the Manhattan project thought they were helping humanity then you get the famous J oppenheimer speech (I'm sorry if that was off topic but I find nuclear bombs and incidents endlessly interesting)
> 
> I think that if you or someone else invents a way to become immortal, the wealthy 1% will show its strength immediately I mean why wouldn't they want it? only a fraction of humanity will have it then, these people could help people right now but don't because greed. Another thing that could happen is that you get people like martin shkreli who will put a price on it so high that only a few people can afford.it


 Yeah, I have to keep it a secret. Hopefully, before people end up getting suspicious of my life-span I could tackle the problems it would cause. Like humanities fight for resources by learning how to create atom conversion. That being, adding protons to an atom. This would balance out the amount of all atoms. Gold will no longer be valuable. Food and water can be made indefinitely. There are a few more concepts I'd want to try with nanobots to make sure people are ready for immortality. That being nanobot conduction, and matter manipulation.



LostHaven said:


> Another problem is that your body is still fragile, if you fell from a building you'll live but everything else will be crushed beyond repair, with time it might repair but you'll useless while you're waiting. The other thing is that your brain would still have limits.
> Another problem is that it wouldn't change people, people will still be cruel to others and pointless wars will happen. Eventually you'll watch as humanity gets destroyed as the earth turns into another Venus by the sun's heat when it transforms into a big red giant Will Earth survive when the sun becomes a red giant? that's if we don't achieve interstellar travel, we might just blow ourselves up before then and cause a nuclear winter. Eventually even blackholes will disappear leaving you in complete darkness, with that no life will be able grow. There is plenty of theories on how the universe will end but I'm not smart enough to comprehend them still thing though. You probably already knew this
> 
> All this might sound overlly cynical but history has taught me that humans can awful with power


 I've heard all these issues a couple of times before. If you're immortal at least you can be sure there's a light at the end of the darkest tunnel. Those who are immortal must embrace the saying "The end justifies the means". In time every issue you have with immortality will disappear because the nature of life is to get rid of what's wrong with it. That being, its physical vulnerabilities, and the capacity of the brain. It's been said that phones are extensions of our minds.

Yes, you need to control people. The best solution I've found to this problem is to give them fake freedom. They think they're free but you actually know all their thoughts so you control them. Messing with memories is one of the last things I want to deal with. If I can use matter manipulation I can control the limbs of others and turn them into my puppets. Elon made his brain chip read the movements, maybe he could cause them from there. Putting them in a simulation would do too. It's dark but it's all in the name of my security. That or I can leave humanity alone by going far away from them. Doing that effectively would require either teleportation and/or time-travel which are the 2 last major accomplishments I'd plan on achieving. I can't see how these can be accomplished without all the other things that need to be done; that being, creating a simulation and mastering nanorobotics.

Time travel in the real world instead of it being in a simulation seems to be the hardest thing the achieve. Convincing someone that the time-travel from a simulation's the real thing sounds easier. I'm looking at all this from how fast nanobots would have to move to pull these things off and how much energy it'd take. Nanobots have been able to move so fast that they were able to 3D print. The future doesn't seem so impossible from that standpoint.


I think it's obvious that interstellar travel would be on the to-do list. There's so much time to do it if I'll live long enough to see the sun turn into a red giant. Society v.s an immortal on a mission, I don't know. I've already agreed that society isn't ready for immortality so I'll have to get them ready. Anything that's a threat to my existence I'll try to prepare for. Gamma-ray bursts could be absorbed by making a mirror around the earth with a fake sky underneath. Black holes... They're generally unstoppable behemoths. You could possibly put a bunch of cameras all over space that communicates with each other to make a 3d representation of space-time in order to approximate the location of a black hole though. If I made it this far I'm sure I'll think of a way to escape the heat death of the universe before then.

If I didn't it'd be a good life anyway. There's no way I'd be suffering in any form throughout the majority all that time being as powerful as I've mentioned. Even if I did it'd be worth it because whatever lies after death's unfalsifiably always much worse than you've experienced. It's actually falsifiable, you just have to narrow down on what an observer is and torture it the worst you can. You can then infer that the same could be done for you. Making yourself vulnerable by dying would then carry empirical weight. Being immortal and floating throughout the heat death of the universe is the same as being dead except if something new ever happens you'll be there to attempt taking advantage of it in consideration of how everything was before.

Yeah, as I've said before I've heard everything you've mentioned a couple of times.


I'm not sure if you're being overly cynical of human beings. I could be someone who's awful with power, I can be pretty moody. I want to rid my free will to equal myself out with everyone at some point cause I may be watched by aliens who have a problem with my behavior.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> If I'm sure it works I'd obviously take it. I only see it getting suspicious if I become the oldest man alive. Am I going to sell it? There are so many variables that could come into play. It depends on how public my progress is because that's what will cause society to respond more than anything else.


There have been a few stories about a man who was immortal. One such man achieved his wish to be so. Unfortunately the story ended when he did something bad and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I suppose this was a case of, "Be careful what you wish for."


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> There have been a few stories about a man who was immortal. One such man achieved his wish to be so. Unfortunately the story ended when he did something bad and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I suppose this was a case of, "Be careful what you wish for."


 That actually sounds much better than sentiently floating out in space till the end of the universe. Even if serving a normal life sentence wasn't enough he ought to break ought due to something in the next few thousand years. I think the oldest prison standing is around 400 years so I find it hard to believe he'll spend his whole life in prison. It's definitely not good to go to prison though, no matter how you contrast it. Being a first immortal is a scary experience and it's just not pleasurable to rot that long in any cell.

It would be funny if society and the prison developed around him for tens of thousands of years. By that time civilization should have progressed to the point where everyone's treated fairly cause we're all just a bunch of chemicals with sentience attached to it. I'd like a link to what you're saying cause I don't believe he's immortal. I'd believe he'd take some life extension though. The worlds' record for age is currently 122 and I haven't heard anything about her going to prison or taking an immortality serum.

Anyone who calls themself immortal without being leagues ahead of the normal lifespan's simply a laughingstock. Until there are more and almost no one dies due to it. If he did exist everyone would hear about this man or he'd be hidden and used for secret scientific advancement, both are generally good. Also, why couldn't you just say the point instead of trying to scare me with a fake story?


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> There have been a few stories


A story is a story. I didn't say if it was fiction or real.




triphazex said:


> Also, why couldn't you just say the point instead of trying to scare me with a fake story?


Are you so easily scared? After all these posts, you assume I am trying to scare you? When you speak of immortality I wonder what other assumptions you are making.


----------



## triphazex

BigApplePi said:


> A story is a story. I didn't say if it was fiction or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so easily scared? After all these posts, you assume I am trying to scare you? When you speak of immortality I wonder what other assumptions you are making.


The story's obviously fiction. I'm not assuming anything. I mean immortality in the most common, basic, sense. After enough time using that you can start assuming things.


----------



## BigApplePi

triphazex said:


> I'm not assuming anything. I mean immortality in the most common, basic, sense. After enough time using that you can start assuming things.


What do you mean by "immortality in the most common, basic, sense. ? For example, is Socrates immortal? Assume what things? Not to forget if you assume things, the person you are talking to may not be aware of your personal assumptions.


----------



## triphazex

What other assumptions are there to make?


----------



## IHaveAName

Socrates said:


> 20% of INTPs are said to be "gifted" in intelligence, whereas 37% of INTJs are.
> 
> Yet some of the most crazy minds, overall, have been INTP. Socrates (the other one), Einstein, Charles Darwin, etc.
> 
> I know my bias and voted accordingly: INTP is the smartest of the two. I can only speak from personal experience, in which I usually obliterate INTJs. Usually. Not always. INTJs, at the very least, are more talented and balanced.
> 
> Their talents are enviable, and they can get laid. 👅


U know ur bias and you speak from personal experience. Why?


----------



## hmk

It doesn't matter who's smartest. It matters what they can do to make things better.


----------



## ENIGMA2019

One for each type heheheheh


----------



## BigApplePi

*Which one is Smarter, INTJ or INTP?*

Hey. INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe while INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. Those are quite different even if both are thinkers. The INTPs think about internal manipulations of the outside world in their heads. The INTJs do the same but in different ways. The INTP wants to put the outside world in order. The INTJ wants to explain an existing order. Is that close enough? The point is those are different ways of thinking ... and you want to ask which is smarter? Apples and oranges. Which one is better?

INTP: Ne is out there but it makes no sense. Think scattered. Ti looks for order.
INTJ: Te is out there. It is in order already. What is the best way to apprehend it? Ni is the answer.
The other four functions only help.

"Smarter"? Define smarter. Speed has something to do with that. INTJs have it easy. All they have to do is come up with one way to handle the outside world. That can be fast. INTPs have to explain the entire outside world. That ain't easy and takes much longer.

Poll? You want to take a poll on this? And not define "smarter" either? Rots o ruck.

Help! INTJs? Where has this gone rong?


----------



## Rift

BigApplePi said:


> Where has this gone rong?


the scope is too big. . . it should be narrowed to specific fields or subjects, etc.

or for greater entertainment... exercises in philosophy, logic and gaming theory.

I know we (intp) frustrate intj as generally we appear to be all over the place, can be wishy washy, get wrapped up in insecurities (or ego) over the wrong things and tend to half arse things.. more frustrating for them when we succeed at achieving the same (or better) results. 

whereas intj tend to frustrate intp by appearing too anal, investing too much time in steadily building up their arsenal to the point of overkill (and of course, unleashing all their reserves, sometimes, on the most benign of tasks), that they wear a mask of confidence but too frequently experience imposter syndrome (and often punish themselves for it or take it out on everyone else.). . . the more frustrating bit for us is when they're right. 

I might be inclined to argue they're more apt to be logical and we're more apt to be philosophical. . . or as you've played out, they're a bit more linear while we're more nonlinear. 

there's a bit of sibling rivalry there, both middle children of the nts.. so, we're closer to each other than to the entjs and entps. hence, there's more debates about intp vs intj than either us broody wangsty teens vs the elder entj and the youngster entp.


----------



## Allostasis

@BigApplePi 


> Help! INTJs? Where has this gone rong?


On the first page right after the second post.



> The INTP wants to put the outside world in order. The INTJ wants to explain an existing order. Is that close enough?


Not necessarily. I like putting outside world in order as well. Cerebrally, mostly, not arranging items on the table or something like that.
But yes, I suppose I prefer to be more rational/objective/empirical rather than purely philosophical and explorational, not that it is something alien to me.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> @BigApplePi
> 
> On the first page right after the second post.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. I like putting outside world in order as well. Cerebrally, mostly, not arranging items on the table or something like that.
> But yes, I suppose I prefer to be more rational/objective/empirical rather than purely philosophical and explorational, not that it is something alien to me.


It's possible INTJs and INTPs being both thinkers will use all of the cognitive functions. It's just that one may be more comfortable pursuing their favorite function not neglecting the other ones. For example, if the INTP likes to think without demanding closure, that is Ti, in spite of a closure aim. The INTJ may be more inclined toward closure, not demanding all the nooks and crannies be checked out. That is intuition or Ni. One goes for now; the other goes for the long run. But if necessary, they will switch roles.

Another strange thing! Was the above written by an INTP or an INTJ? It seems one function by itself can be open or closed while the whole person is the opposite. Ti and Te as stated can appear closed. The whole person can can be open or closed.


----------



## ENIGMA2019

Although, I do like reading some of these responses ultimately- the answer is









You guys may as well just


----------



## BigApplePi

Hey. I think somebody's really hot!


----------



## ENIGMA2019

BigApplePi said:


> Hey. I think somebody's really hot!


I am sure you will find how inline with this thread my questions are going to be _devilish grin_
How do you determine who/whom is hot? Did you use a tape measure to draw your conclusions?


----------



## BigApplePi

ENIGMA2019 said:


> How do you determine who/whom is hot? Did you use a tape measure to draw your conclusions?


That is only too easy to answer. Take the pain. There was a projection of one's own heat rising onto the top picture. The bottom picture? Let him play with his toys. Subjectivity reigns. Yay subjectivity! Come ona my house babe.


----------



## ENIGMA2019

BigApplePi said:


> That is only too easy to answer. Take the pain. There was a projection of one's own heat rising onto the top picture. The bottom picture? Let him play with his toys. Subjectivity reigns. Yay subjectivity! Come ona my house babe.


You always have very interesting music posts. Do you have a preferred genre or is it whatever mood strikes?


----------



## BigApplePi

ENIGMA2019 said:


> Do you have a preferred genre or is it whatever mood strikes?


Whatever genre fits the mood, but not always.


----------



## Annie S.

Neither. Both are just as smart, but in different ways.
INTP: Probably a higher IQ, but (if this makes sense) somewhat the same intelligence as an INTJ. Is satisfied with the answers he has, but when he hears something new, he will consider the answer. Doesn't need to try, in order to get a good grade. Focuses more on video games and such.
INTJ: More principled. Tries harder to understand answers. Focuses mainly on whatever is going on in their head.


----------



## BigApplePi

Annie S. said:


> Neither. Both are just as smart, but in different ways.


Agreed. An INTJ can go for depth, but knows when to stop and that stopping point is the application point.
An INTP can go on and on not caring to stop as refinements can make things better and move away from mistakes, not caring for the application.

Motivation. The INTJ wants to get there; the INTP enjoys the travel.

Applications are good as long as they get it right; they are no good if wrong.


----------



## Allostasis

We can't even begin to address this question meaningfully without re-stating explicitly what is exactly "INTJ" and "INTP" and how their functions are defined, due to the current state of typologies being a complete mess.
Or the exact source of these definitions has to be pointed out.

Without this, all of the statements above can't be evaluated as anything but the exchange of stereotypes which will never amount to exhaustive conclusion.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> We can't even begin to address this question meaningfully without re-stating explicitly what is exactly "INTJ" and "INTP" and how their functions are defined, due to the current state of typologies being a complete mess.


Oh no! Asking for exact definitions. Here is my response. INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se; INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. That's one way to start. After that we could define each cognitive function. I think of the definitions treated like this. Just take the top diagram.
https://www.google.com/search?q=standard+deviation+curves&tbm=isch&chips=q:standard+deviation+curves,g_1:large,online_chips:variability:USWLyy8ZTtg=&bih=792&biw=1728&client=firefox-b-1-d&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAz5_958HwAhWtdN8KHS-YBxIQ4lYoA3oECAEQIg





  






A definition tries to be centered but can deviate from clear meaning as above.


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> Oh no! Asking for exact definitions. Here is my response. INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se; INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. That's one way to start. After that we could define each cognitive function. I think of the definitions treated like this. Just take the top diagram.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=standard+deviation+curves&tbm=isch&chips=q:standard+deviation+curves,g_1:large,online_chips:variability:USWLyy8ZTtg=&bih=792&biw=1728&client=firefox-b-1-d&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAz5_958HwAhWtdN8KHS-YBxIQ4lYoA3oECAEQIg
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 878285
> 
> 
> A definition tries to be centered but can deviate from clear meaning as above.


Yes, we need some approximation with which all of us can agree. "stack" is easy part but is not exhaustive enough. Next step is the actual definitions of functions, but I am too lazy to put serious effort into a topic like this..


----------



## MisterYellowFace

ENTP. You guys have it all wrong. ENTP is the smartest type. Don't poop on extroversion alright. When it comes down to the general way extroversion and introversion works, Extroversion is way better. Talking to people, and not talking to people. Talking to people (ESPECIALLY RANDOM STRANGERS) is a very healthy, and effective way to improve your IQ. All I'm saying is, you gain more knowledge being an extrovert than not. 
Think about it. If Einstein were an extrovert. 
His life would have been easier. Yeah nobody believed him, But he would have been more likely to get his ideas accepted if he were a lifetime extrovert. The more experience you have talking to the world, The easier it is to appeal to the world. If he had social expertise, his ideas would be accepted much faster. And social skills, I gotta say are what makes you smarter. Society is kind of what made the world of being smarter. Unless you are not good with society. Then you are just right. No longer smart, but everyone else is just wrong.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> Yes, we need some approximation with which all of us can agree. "stack" is easy part but is not exhaustive enough. Next step is the actual definitions of functions, but I am too lazy to put serious effort into a topic like this..


"Different strokes for different folks." One can work with the last step provided and stop there. If unhappy, then can take the next step."




Wylie said:


> ENTP. You guys have it all wrong. ENTP is the smartest type. Don't poop on extroversion alright. When it comes down to the general way extroversion and introversion works, Extroversion is way better. Talking to people, and not talking to people. Talking to people (ESPECIALLY RANDOM STRANGERS) is a very healthy, and effective way ...
> 
> His life would have been easier. Yeah nobody believed him, But he would have been more likely to get his ideas accepted if he were a lifetime extrovert. The more experience you have talking to the world, The easier it is to appeal to the world. If he had social expertise, his ideas would be accepted much faster.


Oh yeah? ENTPs are so busy socializing they forget about content. (@series0 ) Their content has to communicate and that takes thinking. If Einstein had spent his time chatting it up at school and work, would he have ever thought of his theories? Such theories require privacy time.


----------



## jetser

Pick one.

(according to this movie an AI outsmarts both of them)


----------



## BigApplePi

jetser said:


> (according to this movie an AI outsmarts both of them)


Was it an INTP AI or a INTJ AI?


----------



## jetser

BigApplePi said:


> Was it an INTP AI or a INTJ AI?


It's an AI. It's neither.


----------



## triphazex




----------



## HAL

jetser said:


> Pick one.
> 
> (according to this movie an AI outsmarts both of them)


 I think the INTJ guy comes across way smarter in that film.

Or maybe I'm being a meek beta male and deferring to him because he's very much the alpha of the pair.


----------



## jetser

HAL said:


> I think the INTJ guy comes across way smarter in that film.
> 
> Or maybe I'm being a meek beta male and deferring to him because he's very much the alpha of the pair.


I don't think he's the smarter one. But I like him too.
I think he had a headstart so he should've won the battle. But INTP came out on top of him, only get beaten by AI.


----------



## ENFPathetic

Ok, so assuming two people were both equally gifted in the intellect department. Who is more likely to tap into their potential? I think when young, the INTP will get ahead because of the extroverted nature of Ne. But in time, the INTJ will steadily outpace him because of the focused nature of Ni. I'm going to change my answer to INTJ.


----------



## l4cky

First I am tired that people can't even link types to IQ.

In the vast majority, type is linked to IQ range. To point out exceptions based on your experience and using the minority or exception to prove your point and then generalizing everything based on a minority is ridiculous. The more accurate sentence would be: All Mbti types do tend to have a certain range of IQ, with some exceptions that are higher and lower.

A good example.

ESFJ has the lowest IQ. That's because they hate to think, if you crack ESFJ MBTI, you realize they value 0 logic, and hates to think just like ISFJ. Does that mean they can't think? No, it means they hate to think, because it gives them a headache. You are allowed to call them stupid or dumb, In fact they really know they are but THEY DON'T CARE because being smart is not what they value.

And then you have many sensing types who are just jealous and try to void any link between MBTI to IQ, most likely because they can't even understand IQ, since they don't even have N. IQ has a correlation with N, but if you don't have N but rather S, but you are able to conclude to something without even understanding the first principles is mind-blowing stupid. Hence, says your IQ.

There are many types of intelligence and it's true it has to be defined. But let's use common sense, we talk about IQ intelligence.

Then now, you have to define IQ.

IQ is the accuracy of the truth, with the time factor injected into it.

This is super important to understand which leads to telling you who is more intelligence (IQ score): INTJ vs INTP.

INTP is more accurate than INTJ, tends to be more precise, and deeper knowledge than INTJ. Everything INTJ can think of, INTP can think of + will analyze other things INTJ deemed not valuable to analyze. I think it's very important to note this. INTP does outwork INTJ when it comes to thinking, planning, and analyzing. This is unquestionable. As much as people say INTJ are masterminds, INTP are doctorminds if you want to use that scale.

But then here comes the time factor. In an IQ test, you have a limited amount of time. INTJ values time and strategy way more than accuracy although they do value accuracy a lot as well. But INTJ outperforms (by outperforms, I mean the execution part, not the thinking part) INTP usually thanks to their time management. They consider time as something extremely important. On the other hand, INTP doesn't give a shit about time as much.

To INTP: it's all about trying to achieve and tend to be the most accurate as possible to the Truth. And it doesn't matter how long it will take. Hence this is why INTP can even think about past projects and they don't move on. If time isn't as important and you remove the time factor, it means you always look for the truth, and it means you hold the truth. No other type can do what INTP does.

To INTJ: It's all about finding the truth in a specific time frame. The time is super important and if needed, they know they need to skip a question they are stuck if it can affect the outcome of the test because they know the test needs to be complete within a time frame. INTP will likely hate the timeframe because time can be an obstacle for them to find the accurate answer.

In summary: All intuitive value time, strategy (efficiency), accuracy, perfection (ideal).

Accuracy is the truth that requires experience, past data, and intuition. All sensors fail to have intuition (or doesn't believe in it), which means they can't have super high IQ like NT because they are far away from the truth.

INTP in average Accuracy <=> perfection > Strategy <=> Time
INTJ in average Strategy <=> Time > Accuracy <=> Perfection

IQ measures all those factors. How is IQ viewed is how you order those 4 elements. To say INTJ smarter than INTP is because the test is focused on time more than accuracy, to say INTP smarter than INTJ is when a test measures accuracy more than time.

In other words, it depends on the IQ test and what that test is biased into which of the 4 elements. For example, an IQ test without multiple choices tend to measure more Accuracy over strategy, while multiples choices can help people who value strategy over Accuracy (reverse engineering).

Also, 70% of the people have a J letter rather than a P. That is super biased to say NJ > NP, because yes, while NJ do get things done, NP are more flexible and creative. Creativity > Getting things done vs Gettings things done > Creativity is another subjective debate).

IQ is linked to N (first thing above all). Ne vs Ni does overlap in many facets. Question is: Do IQ tests value more Ne or Ni? Ne is not Ni, but they complement each other. There is a reason why INTPs are not INTJs. We value the same things (therefore we understand each other), but in slightly different orders (it makes us different).

In other words, Ne is linked to more accuracy than Ni, however, Ne also comes with ADHD or ADD (which is not friendly with time), so Ni might end up showing better results than Ne because of the time factor. The time factor is linked to J (judging). All J values more time than P.

Lastly, the question of which is smarter all comes down to how much you value time and how much you value accuracy. It's subjective. NP sees Accuracy as being more important than time, NJ the opposite. Are IQ tests measuring more the time or the accuracy? At some point, it's not that objective because it depends on what you value. But it's not because of this detail of subjectiveness, you can claim like sensors and say IQ test is irrelevant to MBTI types. While we have trouble knowing INTJ vs INTP, we have absolutely no trouble to say INT > all sensors in terms of IQ.

I just hate when Sensors come here to try to credit NTs for their high IQ. You sensors, have your own abilities, and we N don't mind you are top in your own abilities. But when it comes down to our ability, you come here to start spreading false news?

"People hate progress". I can tell those people are definitely not N types.
---------------------------------------------------
To be more precise, I only point out the differences between INTP vs INTJ. In normal life, both INTs overlap each other and have the same conclusions. INTs have way more similar points than differences. Their cognitive functions are different, so they don't use the same method, but their conclusions are usually very alike. People who tend to judge based on conclusions/observations without paying attention to the methodology, they have a super hard time knowing the difference between INTP and INTJ. In order to answer the OP question, you need to be able to crack down on each INT type and know them super well. In order to understand deeply both types, you need more knowledge than just cognitive functions. Cognitive functions are a great but not 100% complete way to describe a type.

*A combinaison of INFP, ENTP, INTJ, ISTP summons the INTP.
A combinaison of INFJ, ENTJ, INTP, ISTJ summons the INTJ.*

Knowing the difference between INTP vs INTJ is not enough. You need to understand INFP, ENTP, INTJ, ISTP, INFJ, ENTJ, INTP, ISTJ to be able to be more accurate on your conclusions. In other words, you can't just compare friend 1 to friend 2, you need to be aware of friend 1 family and friend 2 family. Yes, it's not that important, but details are always important if they can have an influence.
---------------------------------------------------
The only way for someone to accurately answer the question is to be an INTJ and INTP. It's to be able to execute both 8 cognitive functions at the same intensity or to become both 8 letters very well (depending on how you study MBTIs).


----------



## Allostasis

@l4cky 



> Everything INTJ can think of, INTP can think of + will analyze other things INTJ deemed not valuable to analyze. I think it's very important to note this. INTP does outwork INTJ when it comes to thinking, planning, and analyzing. This is unquestionable.


I disagree.


> + will analyze other things INTJ *deemed not valuable* to analyze.


From this it doesn't necessarily follow that ignored by INTJ things will result into a more efficient thinking/planning/analyzing when picked up by INTP.
An extremely valuable component of cognitive processing and generally any pattern-matching operation is the filtering of irrelevant data.

There is also no reason to assume that INTP by default understands "what is valuable" better than INTJ or that INTJ won't outperform when pushed to analyze everything.



> IQ is linked to N (first thing above all).


And INTJ have it as dominant function, while INTP as auxiliary. There is a lot of consequences of that as in Jung personality basically builds around your dominant function, everything is subservient to it.

Plus N-dom simply by definition will more likely notice more than N-aux. Attitude here doesn't change anything about the mechanics of the function.
This extends to all the other functions, meaning that Ne-aux isn't the same as Ne-dom, meaning that it isn't necessarily more accurate that Ni, as it is relatively unconscious and only partially extraverted.


----------



## Ewok City

l4cky said:


> ESFJ has the lowest IQ. That's because they hate to think, if you crack ESFJ MBTI, you realize they value 0 logic, and hates to think just like ISFJ. Does that mean they can't think? No, it means they hate to think, because it gives them a headache. You are allowed to call them stupid or dumb, In fact they really know they are but THEY DON'T





l4cky said:


> All sensors fail to have intuition (or doesn't believe in it), which means they can't have super high IQ like NT because they are far away from the truth.


While I appreciate your long analysis, but this statement is another one of those stereotypes- so I beg to differ.

I agree, ESFJ has Ti at a lower position in their function stack. But to say that they put 0 value on logic is an overstatement. Maybe we have different experiences on xSFJs, but the ones I know are more than capable of being strategic, and definitely capable of critical thinking. Just that's it not their normal mode of operation, and they need to press the switch to activate that mode.

And saying that sensors doesn't have intuition is also one part that I have to disagree. Sensors do have intuition, which is a fact that I'm sure you're aware of, given how you mentioned Ne vs Ni.

I have nothing against you and I hope that you won't be offended by my disagreement. But this kind of stereotypical posts are what led to the N bias over the Internet, and the huge amount of S types who mistype themselves as N types.



l4cky said:


> Knowing the difference between INTP vs INTJ is not enough. You need to understand INFP, ENTP, INTJ, ISTP, INFJ, ENTJ, INTP, ISTJ to be able to be more accurate on your conclusions.


Yes, that's definitely not enough. Other than that, you would also need to know who are these INTP and INTJ that we're talking about. And their family background, education level, occupation, cultural background, etc.

See the problem now?

Who would win in a fight, a tiger or a shark?


----------



## l4cky

"From this it doesn't necessarily follow that ignored by INTJ things will result into a more efficient thinking/planning/analyzing when picked up by INTP. "

Actually it does. Does it happen often? Not really. The reason is while you call it "An extremely valuable component of cognitive processing and generally any pattern-matching operation is the filtering of irrelevant data", this is flawed. First, valuable is questionable. 2nd, filtering of irrelevant data is only as good as what it says. In other words, you don't have the ability to use the once called irrelevant data and linked it indirectly to become revelent. This is what makes INTP shines over INTJ or you might call it, the difference of Ne and Ni. This is a major difference between INTJ and INTP, and as an INTP, I can use this loophole to outthink an INTJ. It's Ne. "Things might be irrelevant now, but they can actually be useful in the future" (-intp). Time will usually end up saying INTP is right. Hence, INTP is more accurate than INTJ, because accuracy is not linked to time. While you see filtering of irrelevant data is a valuable asset, INTP sees it as your vulnerability. Again J vs P, judging vs perceiving. It's no surprise that data show P > J in terms of IQ in every type. 

There is also no reason to assume that INTP by default understands "what is valuable" better than INTJ or that INTJ won't outperform when pushed to analyze everything. 

Just like there is no reason not to assume INTP by default doesn't understand "what is valuable" better than INTJ. Will INTJ outperform if they analyze everything and not filtrering any data? No they won't, it's a tie. But like I said, filtering irrelevant data, is seen as a flaw rather than valuable when it comes down to accuracy, but it's valuable only if it comes down to the time factor. Nothing is irrelevant, every data has and must be analyzed, for the purpose of understanding the truth with accuracy. You really need to have Ne to be able to view it at this angle.

Like I said with precision, most of the time, you do not see a difference in IQ in both INTs, because the filtering irrelevant data from intj are usually well applied, however, usually doesn't mean always. Usually is just not good enough when it comes down to accuracy/perfectionism.

INTJ use a lot of brainpower. But INTP uses more.

" Plus N-dom simply by definition will more likely notice more than N-aux. Attitude here doesn't change anything about the mechanics of the function.
This extends to all the other functions, meaning that Ne-aux isn't the same as Ne-dom, meaning that it isn't necessarily more accurate that Ni, as it is relatively unconscious and only partially extraverted. "

Like I said, this is only as accurate as the theory of cognitive functions. Cognitive functions DO NOT explain everything in reality. There are flaws when it comes down to the accuracy of the reality. Cognitive functions are not always equivalent to reality. In order words, even you are INTJ, in some situations, you do reverse your dom and aux. The "order" of 1 2 and be 2 1 and 3 4 can be 4 3. You can say INTP have Ne as 2nd, but INTP with good social skills can literally use Ne as 1st when it comes down to some situations. Not everything is organized and routine and structure, not even your brain. Unless you score 100% in I-N-T-J, all of the letters. But that is impossible.

If obvious you defend your J because you're an INTJ, but if you want to compare it daily, you need to understand the positive side of the P rather than the negative side of it. I see a very complete picture of P vs J. J gets things done, P changes the status quo. J is probably the best at coding, while P creates the language of coding. J learns and uses the language, P invents the language. J can learn multiple languages, P can create multiple languages. Only 30% of the people are P, the society tends to brainwash the P up to the point NP usually are irritated because they are unable to be productive and procrastinate (in reality, they are productive and don't procrastinate, but they focus too much on the details). That's because P is playing in the J league. If P knows how to play in his own league, I find it scarier than J.

Every letter is excellent at what they are. Usually, it's we don't value their excellence that made people think they are better.

I hope this helps you be more open-minded about the P. It's only when you see and understand deeply the power of P then you realize it's another spectrum. I see P as a potential where: 'Sky is the limit". J is on another league. Different league. You can't really compare, it's like Apple and Orange.


----------



## l4cky

Ewok City said:


> While I appreciate your long analysis, but this statement is another one of those stereotypes- so I beg to differ.
> 
> I agree, ESFJ has Ti at a lower position in their function stack. But to say that they put 0 value on logic is an overstatement. Maybe we have different experiences on xSFJs, but the ones I know are more than capable of being strategic, and definitely capable of critical thinking. Just that's it not their normal mode of operation, and they need to press the switch to activate that mode.
> 
> And saying that sensors doesn't have intuition is also one part that I have to disagree. Sensors do have intuition, which is a fact that I'm sure you're aware of, given how you mentioned Ne vs Ni.
> 
> I have nothing against you and I hope that you won't be offended by my disagreement. But this kind of stereotypical posts are what led to the N bias over the Internet, and the huge amount of S types who mistype themselves as N types.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's definitely not enough. Other than that, you would also need to know who are these INTP and INTJ that we're talking about. And their family background, education level, occupation, cultural background, etc.
> 
> See the problem now?
> 
> Who would win in a fight, a tiger or a shark?


I am not as good at explaining myself sometimes, but I must say I was angry at those sensors saying false statements, hence I wanted to put them back into their place. You are correct at some point. ESFJ has the ability of critical thinking and they need to press the switch to activate that mode. 100%. However, the question is like I said, will they? Being capable is one thing, using is another. And the more you use, the better u are at. So yeah, while ESFJ does have Ne and Ti, and yes they are capable, but they won't do it until forced to. But they don't practice enough, which makes them less reliable, and also they will score lower in accuracy. I think it is important to note, while we might have and share similar cognitive functions, the order of 1 and 2 vs 3 and 4 has a huge impact on everyday life. In theory, if ESFJ always activates their button, they might become INTP. But then, can they be considered as INTP? Well not for the long term, only for very short term. When each MBTI has to reverse too much their cognitive functions especially inversing 1-2 to become 3-4, It makes them stress, unhappy, and irritated. Can they do it? yes, will they be happy? NO. Can it eventually lead to unhealthy? Possible. Question is : how long can you keep doing things that make you unhappy? Not very long.. usually. Else, you might ended up depressed.

Sensors do have intuition, they do understand, but they don't value it. To them, intuition is not tangible, can not be proven, that's their logic. Are they wrong? Yes, they are. They do have intuition, but they don't rely on it because they see it as unreliable. This is a major reason why N and S can have hard time to get along. (INFJ, ENFP for example don't get along with S types).

"And their family background, education level, occupation, cultural background, etc."

Yes, so I just assume the theory of INTP and INTJ rather than talking about specific INTP/INTJ.

MBTI is to me natural skills (unconscience). Conscience is acquired skills that you don't have it in your natural skillsets (educations, experience, etc..) This is another long topic to talk about. I used MBTI as subconscience and natural skills rather than decision making.

MBTI doesn't change with time. It can be polished and leveled up (mature). But MBTI is only part of decision-making. Decision-making doesn't always reflect on MBTI. Decisions making is another topic, it definitely has something to do with MBTI, but MBTI is not always the only factor that plays in. An analogy is your nose is congested. The congestion is the end result of the blockade of histamine receptors and noradrenaline receptors. Both receptors are different but they both can contribute to congestion. At the end of the day, it's the end result of the sums of everything. MBTI is just one type of receptor. there are many other receptors, in other words, many other factors than can contribute to a decision making.

No matter how I believe sensors are IQ low, they however, tend to find happiness easier than intuitive types. At the end of the day, all that matters is happiness. How Sensors view life is very different, but while it is dumb, it's smart in other ways.

If tomorrow is the end of life and everyone would die, tell me: who has enjoyed more their life? an ESTP or an ENTP? ISTP or INTP? ISTJ or INTJ? Focusing on the future (N) allows you to be happier in the future but fails to make you happier in the present moment.

S "The future is uncertain. Live the moment so you don't regret it"
N "The ability to see patterns will allow me to predict the future. The future will become the present one day. Once the future is reached, I think back of the past and there is nothing to regret".

S and N don't even value the same thing. But their goal all converge to happiness, which is subjective to all types.

If you are an INFP, the ideal world would be a world where everyone respects each other (especially when disagreeing). If only every type has a deep understanding of all other types, the world would be such a better place, right?

Otherwise, how can you respect if you don't bother to understand? This simple question is also how we can solve 99% of all humans conflicts, wars, fights, etc..

Just imagine is time is not a factor. And ESTP Trump meets INFJ Hitler...

MBTI is like Physics. Interactions between each MBTI is like Chemistry. The problems are never about physic, but always about chemistry. But you need to understand physics to formulate chemistry.


----------



## Allostasis

l4cky said:


> "From this it doesn't necessarily follow that ignored by INTJ things will result into a more efficient thinking/planning/analyzing when picked up by INTP. "
> 
> Actually it does. Does it happen often? Not really. The reason is while you call it "An extremely valuable component of cognitive processing and generally any pattern-matching operation is the filtering of irrelevant data", this is flawed. First, valuable is questionable. 2nd, filtering of irrelevant data is only as good as what it says. In other words, you don't have the ability to use the once called irrelevant data and linked it indirectly to become revelent. This is what makes INTP shines over INTJ or you might call it, the difference of Ne and Ni. This is a major difference between INTJ and INTP, and as an INTP, I can use this loophole to outthink an INTJ. It's Ne. "Things might be irrelevant now, but they can actually be useful in the future" (-intp). Time will usually end up saying INTP is right. Hence, INTP is more accurate than INTJ, because accuracy is not linked to time. While you see filtering of irrelevant data is a valuable asset, INTP sees it as your vulnerability. Again J vs P, judging vs perceiving. It's no surprise that data show P > J in terms of IQ in every type.
> 
> There is also no reason to assume that INTP by default understands "what is valuable" better than INTJ or that INTJ won't outperform when pushed to analyze everything.
> 
> Just like there is no reason not to assume INTP by default doesn't understand "what is valuable" better than INTJ. Will INTJ outperform if they analyze everything and not filtrering any data? No they won't, it's a tie. But like I said, filtering irrelevant data, is seen as a flaw rather than valuable when it comes down to accuracy, but it's valuable only if it comes down to the time factor. Nothing is irrelevant, every data has and must be analyzed, for the purpose of understanding the truth with accuracy. You really need to have Ne to be able to view it at this angle.
> 
> Like I said with precision, most of the time, you do not see a difference in IQ in both INTs, because the filtering irrelevant data from intj are usually well applied, however, usually doesn't mean always. Usually is just not good enough when it comes down to accuracy/perfectionism.
> 
> INTJ use a lot of brainpower. But INTP uses more.
> 
> " Plus N-dom simply by definition will more likely notice more than N-aux. Attitude here doesn't change anything about the mechanics of the function.
> This extends to all the other functions, meaning that Ne-aux isn't the same as Ne-dom, meaning that it isn't necessarily more accurate that Ni, as it is relatively unconscious and only partially extraverted. "
> 
> Like I said, this is only as accurate as the theory of cognitive functions. Cognitive functions DO NOT explain everything in reality. There are flaws when it comes down to the accuracy of the reality. Cognitive functions are not always equivalent to reality. In order words, even you are INTJ, in some situations, you do reverse your dom and aux. The "order" of 1 2 and be 2 1 and 3 4 can be 4 3. You can say INTP have Ne as 2nd, but INTP with good social skills can literally use Ne as 1st when it comes down to some situations. Not everything is organized and routine and structure, not even your brain. Unless you score 100% in I-N-T-J, all of the letters. But that is impossible.
> 
> If obvious you defend your J because you're an INTJ, but if you want to compare it daily, you need to understand the positive side of the P rather than the negative side of it. I see a very complete picture of P vs J. J gets things done, P changes the status quo. J is probably the best at coding, while P creates the language of coding. J learns and uses the language, P invents the language. J can learn multiple languages, P can create multiple languages. Only 30% of the people are P, the society tends to brainwash the P up to the point NP usually are irritated because they are unable to be productive and procrastinate (in reality, they are productive and don't procrastinate, but they focus too much on the details). That's because P is playing in the J league. If P knows how to play in his own league, I find it scarier than J.
> 
> Every letter is excellent at what they are. Usually, it's we don't value their excellence that made people think they are better.
> 
> I hope this helps you be more open-minded about the P. It's only when you see and understand deeply the power of P then you realize it's another spectrum. I see P as a potential where: 'Sky is the limit". J is on another league. Different league. You can't really compare, it's like Apple and Orange.





> First, valuable is questionable.


Is that supposed to be an argument or you are failed to derive "valuable" from the context? I can throw at you 'Define "questionable"' and discussion will never end.
If it is questionable, then your whole argument is questionable, which contradicts to your point that it is not.



> This is what makes INTP shines over INTJ or you might call it, the difference of Ne and Ni. This is a major difference between INTJ and INTP, and as an INTP, I can use this loophole to outthink an INTJ. It's Ne. "Things might be irrelevant now, but they can actually be useful in the future" (-intp).


Except that this is not Ne.



> Time will usually end up saying INTP is right. Hence, INTP is more accurate than INTJ, because accuracy is not linked to time.


"They are usually end up right hence they are more accurate"
Because you said so, apparently.



> While you see filtering of irrelevant data is a valuable asset, INTP sees it as your vulnerability.


This INTP will never going to outwork anyone, as he will be trapped in mulling over countless irrelevant data ad infinitum.



> Just like there is no reason not to assume INTP by default doesn't understand "what is valuable" better than INTJ.


You throwing reverse of my argument at me means that you can't back up your own argument about outworking.



> But like I said, filtering irrelevant data, is seen as a flaw rather than valuable when it comes down to accuracy, but it's valuable only if it comes down to the time factor. Nothing is irrelevant, every data has and must be analyzed, for the purpose of understanding the truth with accuracy. You really need to have Ne to be able to view it at this angle.


That is not how it works. I understand your point and how seemingly irrelevant data can actually be important in future.
The problem is that you don't understand the theory and none of that is specific to Ne.



> It's no surprise that data show P > J in terms of IQ in every type.


Yet you somehow skip the fact INTJs dominant function is N, which is a *perceiving* function.



> Usually is just not good enough when it comes down to accuracy/perfectionism.


Because you said so? 



> INTJ use a lot of brainpower. But INTP uses more.


Because you are INTP and you have to be smarter, of course.



> Like I said, this is only as accurate as the theory of cognitive functions. Cognitive functions DO NOT explain everything in reality. There are flaws when it comes down to the accuracy of the reality. Cognitive functions are not always equivalent to reality


Never I claimed otherwise. 



> In order words, even you are INTJ, in some situations, you do reverse your dom and aux. The "order" of 1 2 and be 2 1 and 3 4 can be 4 3.


That is not how it works. Again. 



> You can say INTP have Ne as 2nd, but INTP with good social skills can literally use Ne as 1st when it comes down to some situations.


This is just nonsense.



> If obvious you defend your J because you're an INTJ


No. I made an argument and received huge wall of wishful thinking in response that isn't backed up by any theoretical understanding.
And somehow you are trying to convince me in the superior systematic accuracy.



> you need to understand the positive side of the P rather than the negative side of it.


I never claimed that I see P in a negative light. I never claimed that INTJs are superior than INTPs intellectually. 



> J is probably the best at coding, while P creates the language of coding. J learns and uses the language, P invents the language. J can learn multiple languages, P can create multiple languages.


that is an incorrect and narrow-minded perspective which is, again, only serves to inflate your positive associations with your own type to feel better about yourself. 



> I hope this helps you be more open-minded about the P. It's only when you see and understand deeply the power of P


Try actually studying the theory before going "open-minded" with these make believe stories.


----------



## Mark R

INTJs probably have a higher average IQ. The intelligence of INTPs is more widely varied. An INTP is more likely to be a genius.


----------



## BigApplePi

Mark R said:


> INTJs probably have a higher average IQ. The intelligence of INTPs is more widely varied. An INTP is more likely to be a genius.


The INTJ builds sandcastles in the air; the INTP lives in them; the ENTJ collects the rent.


----------



## tanstaafl28

It's not a contest. They are both smart in different ways. All types have their strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Mark R

tanstaafl28 said:


> It's not a contest. They are both smart in different ways. All types have their strengths and weaknesses.


I'd rather have one of each on a team than two of either. They build off of each other's strengths.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Mark R said:


> I'd rather have one of each on a team than two of either. They build off of each other's strengths.


An INTJ and INTP backing up an ENTP (maybe one SJ to provide some counterpoint and follow through) Dream Team!


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> The INTJ builds sandcastles in the air; the INTP lives in them; the ENTJ collects the rent.


The ISTP does the repairs; the ENTP reports on every event.


----------



## Something Awfuln't




----------



## Mystery2059

Maybe neither depends on how their brain power process stuff.


----------



## Antiparticle




----------



## Allostasis

Antiparticle said:


> View attachment 912859


Statistics ultimately can't prove it. Even if the image with it gets posted twice, the chance of correlations proving causation won't double from zero.


----------



## Antiparticle

Allostasis said:


> Statistics ultimately can't prove it. Even if the image with it gets posted twice, the chance of correlations proving causation won't double from zero.


I didn’t look at the thread closely, just posted after reading the title 😇


----------



## BigApplePi

No matter how smart you is, you is gonna be out-smartest by 15 others.


----------

