Anyone else

[Philosophyking87]

find that there's a lot less stupidity on this forum than elsewhere -- both in general daily life and on other forums?

I find that I have to point out errors in other people's reasoning a lot less around here, and most people here aren't stupid enough to say things like, "It's because we have a black president" (i.e., most of the moronic stuff you hear during political discussions).

Are INTPs generally a lot less prone to erroneous thinking, such as common prejudices and ethnocentrism? I encounter these things everywhere else in society except here on this forum. I wonder why...

Perhaps our obsession with logical reasoning tends to root out that type of blatant stupidity, which the rest/majority of humanity finds natural?

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert Einstein

Are INTPs one of the few types of people capable of both forming and expressing different opinions (usually more logical), while most people simply fall victim to fallacious group thinking, due to their much higher levels of social attachment?

What do you guys think? This is just a random observation, as the difference between this forum and most other areas of society are like black and white.

To me, it's almost like a haven away from the common stupidity of the overly-social human animal.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I'd say INTP's are only less prone to THAT particular kind of (black presedent-esque) erroneous thinking. This is just my personal theory, but I believe it stems from the fact that INTP's are generally too preoccupied with pretentious, superiority complex oriented thinking ('obsessions with logical reasoning'...perfect example) to have time for the more garden variety forms of stupidity.

 

[Czech Yes or No]

Yes, all INTx's are better at impartial, cohesive thinking than other types.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

Are INTPs generally a lot less prone to erroneous thinking, such as common prejudices and ethnocentrism? I encounter these things everywhere else in society except here on this forum. I wonder why...

I don't believe INTP's are IMMUNE to those qualities. However, I think because they are knowledge accumulators and logic driven, there is a much greater likelihood of an INTP growing out of those pitfalls should he/she stumble into them.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Very well put, PV.

 

[IssphitiKOzS]

I could mention your MBTIcentrism. I could say that you've merely waited to hear everyone else speak, then said something that hasn't been said (i.e. "It's because we're all INTPs"), and thus sounded better thought out.

You're still falling victim to group thinking, and saying what you, and in this case we, want to hear: that we're somehow better than those idiot dregs.

 

[Philosophyking87]

That's one of the most unhelpful and useless posts I've seen in a long time, Iss. Are you trolling?

 

[IssphitiKOzS]

Because I didn't agree with you, or sit on the fence like the others.

INTPs are no more or less stupid than any other type. This forum is about introspection, and that's why it seems more intelligent. We all enjoy analyzing life. INTP has little if anything to do with it.

 

[Jaffa]

I must say that the only reason I've stuck around here is due to the high standard of informative, useful posts and what seems to be a well rounded, intellegent community.

I feel that I can learn from sticking around here, rather than the opposite which seems to happen elsewhere.

 

[Jennywocky]

That's one of the most unhelpful and useless posts I've seen in a long time, Iss. Are you trolling?

I actually had the same thought when I saw your OP, so no, he's not necessarily trolling... there's a lot of discussion of "type" that in the end, even when well-meant, just comes down to blathering about whether "our" type is better than "their" type.

In a sense, the discussion is purely academic; INTPs fuck up as much as other types, we just do it in different ways. Is there any positive net gain to conclusions drawn from your OP? None that I saw. It just seemed designed to say, "yes, we're better at this that others." So... now what? What's the overall use of that? (serious question)

 

[Puffy]

^ I didn't think that Iss was trolling either.

INTP has become more the community name for me. I think the members of this place, their interests and mannerisms, are too diverse to come under the category of one type. INTP as a label seems more like a pin we look to for acceptance and solidarity, an assurance that we all be treated as equals -- that much I don't have any problem with.

I take more assurance in the belief that if typology is true this forum represents a broader spectrum of the types than just one. I think this is relevant to this thread because a celebration of the INTP type as the self-reflexive, intelligent crust of society would just lead to discrimination of people who identifiy with different types.

It's more likely to me that the types are flexible and that this forum attracts the more self-reflexive variations of each.

 

[soupymess]

I see what OP's up to... He's conspicuously flattering of this bunch as exceptionally objective and intelligent by virtue of their INTPf-ness, and they respond with healthy amounts of skepticism and self-effacement. INTPf circlejerks are not like other circlejerks etc.

 

[Moocow]

I think everyone is pandering to the group a little bit, as an inevitable tendency. The attitude that INTPs are superior flatters INTPs and given the name of the forum appeals to common sense, but the concession that INTPs screw up just as much as anyone else and that we're all intellectually equal just sounds like a politically correct concession without greater evidence than the contrary. I'm not inclined however to use "intelligence" in the broad egalitarian way that some people do because I think it just makes the word meaningless.

I DO notice that this forum has absolutely superior posting habits to most of the other forums I've frequented. I can sign on here expecting to see posts with good grammar, spelling, and overall clarity.
However instead of pinning it on the INTP type as we may be tempted to do, why don't we think about some other possible correlations?

We're here because we were interested in learning more about our personality type, so some level of introspection is shared among us. It wouldn't surprise me if introspection (in general) came with a need to express its deliberations clearly.
The forum also lacks elite groups, clubs, teams, or anything of that sort which tends to brew up people's stupidity and hostility quickly.

 

[Moocow]

I see what OP's up to... He's conspicuously flattering of this bunch as exceptionally objective and intelligent by virtue of their INTPf-ness, and they respond with healthy amounts of skepticism and self-effacement. INTPf circlejerks are not like other circlejerks etc.

Ha ha haa.
But seriously, every forum has circlejerking. Ours is just... subtle. There's a lot of attempted modesty clouding it over.
It'll never be perfect but it's better than the alternatives.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I see what OP's up to... He's conspicuously flattering of this bunch as exceptionally objective and intelligent by virtue of their INTPf-ness, and they respond with healthy amounts of skepticism and self-effacement. INTPf circlejerks are not like other circlejerks etc.

I made a series of observations and asked a series of inquisitive questions based on those observations (which may be accurate or inaccurate).

I did not say that we are indeed "exceptionally objective and intelligent." If you could actually read properly, you'd know that I instead was trying to get to a potential relationship between those with a tendency to thinking logically and the notion of an avoidance of erroneous thinking.

You missed the point, just like everyone else (except perhaps Peripheral Visionary). I believe he's perhaps the only one who really understood what I was getting at.

/facepalm

The irony: noting that this forum tends to be filled with logic somehow leads to a host of presumptions and illogical motive guesses... wow

I actually had the same thought when I saw your OP, so no, he's not necessarily trolling... there's a lot of discussion of "type" that in the end, even when well-meant, just comes down to blathering about whether "our" type is better than "their" type.

Be that as it may, no one said a thing about better types (beyond the rather active imagination of a few of the members).

Here's a list of what I specifically mentioned in my post:

• The impersonal observation that there seems to be less erroneous thinking at this forum in comparison to others, as well as daily life beyond the net.
  
  Inquisitively, I asked if it's perhaps because INTPs are less prone to erroneous thinking altogether that there seems to be less erroneous thinking on this forum.
  
  I then also asked if it's perhaps because we tend to have an obsession with or proclivity towards logical reasoning that we seem to exhibit less erroneous thinking.
  
  I then posed the question of whether INTPs tend to be detached enough from their social environments that group thinking and social biases become generally less pronounced.

At no point did I mention anything even remotely typist in nature. Typism would be to say something like, "INTPs are better than other types, because they avoid erroneous thinking." This was not mentioned. What I did say was that a place with less erroneous thinking is, for me, a haven from the annoyance of incorrect reasoning largely prevalent throughout humanity. That does not imply that INTPs (or anyone else perhaps inclined toward clear thinking) are superior to other types. It's merely one aspect/factor of judgment among a plethora. I simply personally highly value clear, logical reasoning (and clearly, I despise incorrect reasoning).

But of course, someone could easily say, "Most people demonstrate a very high level of work ethic, while some people (perhaps a group of people loosely identified as INTP) are just lazy and sit around on the job, thinking of their stupid theories all day." Would such a person be incorrect, if indeed a group of INTPs did tend to avoid work and sit around on the job? No. It would be an honest observation. A true observation? Not necessarily, but an observation nonetheless. Would such a person presume that types with work ethic are better than INTPs? Not necessarily. They clearly prefer to associate with individuals with high work ethic; but that doesn't say a thing about the overall value of any particular type of person. It just shows that, based on particular observations, some people are -- subjectively speaking -- more or less preferable.

So I really don't see how Iss can substantiate any of the bogus claims he made towards my post. To make the claim that one group of people is "better" than another in some all-encompassing manner is indeed typism, and therefore, it is indeed flawed reasoning. However, to merely note observations and then state one's preferences based on such observations is not typist at all, as people are entitled to prefer particular behavior over others. Hence, while I indeed prefer those who can reason logically to those who cannot (or who generally do not), my post was more about trying to speculate as to the reason(s) why INTPs (or at least those here at this forum) seem to demonstrate less erroneous reasoning. And clearly, my primary concern (the emboldened statement above) doesn't really have a thing to do with my preference for a group of people who avoid fallacious reasoning over those who generally do not.

Also note that you say, "There's a lot of discussion of type that..." This is essentially judging my post rather prematurely against a backdrop. Why jump to conclusions and hastily assume that since most discussions of type tend to lead to typism, that my post -- which really tends to mention actual observations which can be questioned -- will also do so? There was no warrant for such a conclusion. And therefore, it's an unfounded line of thinking to presume my post was about some objective exaltation of the INTP type above others, as I was only trying to theoretically understand a few observations I've noticed (which most people here seem to avoid altogether when responding).

In a sense, the discussion is purely academic; INTPs fuck up as much as other types, we just do it in different ways. Is there any positive net gain to conclusions drawn from your OP? None that I saw. It just seemed designed to say, "yes, we're better at this that others." So... now what? What's the overall use of that? (serious question)

1. No one said this discussion wasn't academic. It's clearly theoretical, if indeed I am trying to speculate as to the reasons why this forum -- composed largely of INTPs and perhaps INTJs -- tends to bear less erroneous thinking.

2. Of course INTPs have their own flaws; all types have flaws. No one said otherwise. Thus, I say: ask before you presume. Inquire before you form judgments. To say that INTPs (and perhaps INTJs, among a few other types) tend to avoid erroneous reasoning isn't so say that such people are perfect and never make any mistakes. We do make mistakes. It just may be the case that erroneous thinking may not be one of them, and that's all this thread is about. Jeez...

3. If one finds no "positive net gain" in my post, then so be it. I personally enjoy speculation (and I'm sure a few other do as well). Moreover, I did not "conclude" anything in my post. Again, I asked a series of inquisitive questions, based on a number of observations (mostly that this forum tends to lack erroneous thinking to a large degree). And yes, the fact that it "seemed designed" to "say we're better than other types," is a flaw on the part of those who incorrectly believed it to be so. Either reading comprehension on the part of the readers must be aligned to such an extent that it allows the text to be read as it was intended (which is clearly a series of harmless observations and inquisitive questions -- not typism and conclusions). Or, the readers, rather than jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, could have easily teased out or asked as to whether or not the point of the thread was to exalt INTPs (or those of this forum) and objectively degrade everyone else, to the extent that it seems as though people who cannot reason properly are 100% useless (which was clearly not the case). As I said, I only implied that I personally do not prefer being around people who cannot reason properly. It irks me; it's a pet peeve. It makes this forum a haven, generally speaking. And that's all.

Thus, it's no wonder I believed Iss to be trolling (as he clearly has a bad pattern of behavior already), when the concerns which you guys raise are clearly bogus and unfounded. And as I said, it's hard to substantive a lot of the notions you guys took for granted without properly investigating before hand.

I could mention your MBTIcentrism.

Point out exactly where this typism occurred and explain how you can at all be sure of the notion that any statement in my post can be reliably considered typism. I'd love to see some analysis or proof to support your claim.

I could say that you've merely waited to hear everyone else speak, then said something that hasn't been said (i.e. "It's because we're all INTPs"), and thus sounded better thought out.

This is ad hominem circumstantial (more specifically, the Appeal to Motive). What I intended, or why I responded at a particular time and not at another, is entirely irrelevant to the post in question, as you cannot at all substantiate that a) such intentions existed and b) that such intentions really did have a role in the post itself.

Next time, stick to what you can support -- fallacious reasoning is unacceptable.

You're still falling victim to group thinking, and saying what you, and in this case we, want to hear: that we're somehow better than those idiot dregs.

Again, this is a claim (a mere assertion) which lacks sufficient support. You cannot substantiate this notion that I was indeed appealing to INTPs (or those who tend to reason properly) with this post by stating that INTPs are somehow better than other types. First of all, as I just explained, there's not enough evidence in my post which justifies the accusation that I at all even claimed that INTPs are indeed better than all other types. Second, if I cannot be said to have stated that INTPs are better than other types, what reason would I have to -- as you claim without support -- appeal to INTPs?

Your entire post is lacking in substance, filled with baseless presumptions, and ultimately exists as a collection of grossly misguided suspicions based on a rather wild interpretation of my post.

Congratulations. As I said, you have demonstrated a series of bad behavior both in this thread and elsewhere (and as other members of this forum have noted it as well, I will not go into details). Based both on your previous behavior and the fact that your post is a giant series of gross presumptions about my intentions and the content of my post, I was justified in thinking of you as a troll (and moreover, in all reality, I may actually be right in having thought so). Thus, I will say no more. I will never respond to another one of your posts, as it's just not worth my time, and it's sad to know that a few somewhat respected INTPs also held the disappointing line of reasoning as you when they read my post.

Good day.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I think everyone is pandering to the group a little bit, as an inevitable tendency. The attitude that INTPs are superior flatters INTPs and given the name of the forum appeals to common sense, but the concession that INTPs screw up just as much as anyone else and that we're all intellectually equal just sounds like a politically correct concession without greater evidence than the contrary. I'm not inclined however to use "intelligence" in the broad egalitarian way that some people do because I think it just makes the word meaningless.

I DO notice that this forum has absolutely superior posting habits to most of the other forums I've frequented. I can sign on here expecting to see posts with good grammar, spelling, and overall clarity.

However instead of pinning it on the INTP type as we may be tempted to do, why don't we think about some other possible correlations?

We're here because we were interested in learning more about our personality type, so some level of introspection is shared among us. It wouldn't surprise me if introspection (in general) came with a need to express its deliberations clearly.
The forum also lacks elite groups, clubs, teams, or anything of that sort which tends to brew up people's stupidity and hostility quickly.

Agreed. Thanks for actually taking the topic seriously, without immediately assuming it's just a giant collection of circle jerking (which it really was not intended to be).

Although, what other "possible correlations" might exist as explanations for the given observations?

Ha ha haa.
But seriously, every forum has circlejerking. Ours is just... subtle. There's a lot of attempted modesty clouding it over.

It'll never be perfect but it's better than the alternatives.

The sad thing is that it's not a "we're better than everyone else" post. It's an honest post based on observations of things like posting quality, the lack of fallacious reasoning, and perhaps proper grammar (as you said, although I personally find the lack of fallacious reasoning to be most important). Given these observations, I clearly wonder what may account for them. Why is this forum so different from most others? Is it that most people here are INTPs (or types similar to the INTP), or is it something else?

I personally may think it's perhaps associated to the types this forum mostly tends to attract, but I made no formal, definitive conclusion on the matter. I, instead, left it very much open-ended for possible discussion.

Rather than exalting and praising all INTPs (like a damn circle jerk), my post is more about the differences between various forums, and the type of conversation which occurs at this forum in comparison to those which occur in every day life. My hunch is that it may have something to do with the personality types of the individuals, on the whole, and given it's an INTP site meant to primarily attract INTPs, that would be an obvious place to start.

And clearly, because I am a very strongly identified INTP, I tend to really personally wonder why others are so inclined to statements such as, "It's because our president is black." It utterly baffles me that others are usually this obtuse, whereas such statements are rarely stated here at this forum. Clearly, there may be a connection.

So I don't get how everyone can so easily presume it's a circle jerk post...

 

[Meer]

No.

 

[Solitaire U.]

...wall of text...

'Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must
Feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines.'

 

[Yet]

I kinda enjoy it here as well
It has not just got to do with the reasoning but also with the nutty-ness, reading the brainfarts and jokes here makes me laugh sometimes.

On the science forum (dutch speaking so no use to most here) there's strickter reasoning though in the discussions (but less fun).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't believe INTPs are less prone to erroneous thinking or intrinsically thinking in a "correct" manner, but more prone to change their beliefs and values when confronted with an argument that makes sense. At one point in time (~5-6 years ago, when I was ~17-18), I admit that I would have been one of those "because we have a black president" people. What changed me, or what allowed me to change, was participation in a now defunct politics forum during the 2008 election.

Otherwise, I believe that any T-dominant individual is vulnerable to a good logical argument and any F-dominant individual vulnerable to a compelling emotional one, with a few circumstances when some individuals will refuse to acknowledge a more correct argument because of personal biases, i.e. accepting that argument would result in harm to their person, social relationships, etc. To paraphrase Socrates "If you're on the losing side of an argument, you're either on the wrong side of the argument or you're a fucking dumbass."

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

As an INTP, I DO feel superior...in the areas that INTP's are superior in. I suck in other ways. I like good spelling and clarity of thought. Since it doesn't appear to be a universal virtue, I can't say that liking that makes me better than anyone else.

This echoes what is already be said by others, so at the risk of being superfluous: In my purely non-empirical anecdotal experience, INTP's will tend to see the reason of things when reasonably presented, and are skeptical of attempts to be convinced of something by tugs at the heart strings. Does this trait make us the superior race? Not by a long stretch. Just superior in this regard.

I heard a joke once. What would the world be like if everyone was an INTP? Well, we'd have fantastic plans for elaborate homes and skyscrapers lying all over the caves we lived in.

Perhaps that would be the case, but at least we'd have great conversations. And people would leave at a reasonable time.

So bring on the circle jerk.

 

[GYX_Kid]

We just have our heads up our asses at a differently-calibrated angle.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So bring on the circle jerk.

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=12105&highlight=group+sex

 

[Puffy]

I think everyone is pandering to the group a little bit, as an inevitable tendency. The attitude that INTPs are superior flatters INTPs and given the name of the forum appeals to common sense, but the concession that INTPs screw up just as much as anyone else and that we're all intellectually equal just sounds like a politically correct concession without greater evidence than the contrary. I'm not inclined however to use "intelligence" in the broad egalitarian way that some people do because I think it just makes the word meaningless.

I DO notice that this forum has absolutely superior posting habits to most of the other forums I've frequented. I can sign on here expecting to see posts with good grammar, spelling, and overall clarity.
However instead of pinning it on the INTP type as we may be tempted to do, why don't we think about some other possible correlations?

We're here because we were interested in learning more about our personality type, so some level of introspection is shared among us. It wouldn't surprise me if introspection (in general) came with a need to express its deliberations clearly.
The forum also lacks elite groups, clubs, teams, or anything of that sort which tends to brew up people's stupidity and hostility quickly.

I didn't write so much with a commitment to political correctness, but I understand why it might be read that way, the OP says he is committed to truth and so am I in the context of this discussion. I think it's an important one.

Assuming that MBTI is true and that there are 16 types, what is the probability of everyone here being an INTP? I originally came here because I took one of the tests and came out INTP, but over the few years I've been here I've retested as INTJ, INFJ and ENTP. Now I'm xxxx

Yet if philosophyking was to base his results on the members of this forum I undoubtedly would come under the talley as INTP (for how would he distinguish me as 'not' an INTP?). In terms of determining 'INTP intelligence' this seems skewed to me.

This forum is composed of people who self-identify with the INTP label, majoratively. What I'm suggesting is that a distinction should be made between INTP and identification as one, as really what I think @Philosophyking87 should be asking is whether people who self-identify as INTPs (and are hence drawn to this place) are more intelligent than other people.

People come here thinking they're INTP, many question this and move on to other types. I know a former member who now believes he is an ISFJ, another who now is very certain that he is an ESFP. They're not below the average intelligence of this forum (you only need to go back to their old posts to prove it) and ultimately they're just determining their type as those here do, just perhaps with more probing.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I at no point did I want to know if anyone is more intelligent than anyone else.
I was speaking of logical reasoning and the avoidance of irrational thinking, such as ethnocentrism and other common prejudices. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intelligence, even if they are likely correlated.

 

[Philosophyking87]

As an INTP, I DO feel superior...in the areas that INTP's are superior in. I suck in other ways. I like good spelling and clarity of thought. Since it doesn't appear to be a universal virtue, I can't say that liking that makes me better than anyone else.

This echoes what is already be said by others, so at the risk of being superfluous: In my purely non-empirical anecdotal experience, INTP's will tend to see the reason of things when reasonably presented, and are skeptical of attempts to be convinced of something by tugs at the heart strings. Does this trait make us the superior race? Not by a long stretch. Just superior in this regard.

I heard a joke once. What would the world be like if everyone was an INTP? Well, we'd have fantastic plans for elaborate homes and skyscrapers lying all over the caves we lived in.

Perhaps that would be the case, but at least we'd have great conversations. And people would leave at a reasonable time.

So bring on the circle jerk.

Aye. All this forums requires is social activity -- not actual implementation. Therefore, if indeed INTPs tend to have strengths in grammar and clarity of thought, and since most of the members here are likely INTP (or something similar), given it's meant to primarily attract those who test as INTP, it follows that it's perhaps because INTPs bear these traits that this forum tends to indeed foster very great conversations -- so far as "great conversations" means "clear, well-expressed thought devoid of common error" -- (where the prejudices of the social environment, which Einstein talks about, seem to be a lot more watered down, if present at all).

But of course, I know that there's an "INTJ Forum," and that place also seems very far removed from the problems of common social interaction (social environments in which ethnocentrism, fallacious reasoning, and heart-string tugging tends to run rampant). But one could also hypothesize that INTJs also bear a knack for logic and particularly tend to insist upon factual (empirical) evidence. Thus, while both forums may be slightly different, it's probably unlikely that there's statements such as "It's because our president is black" over at that forum, as well. But who knows; this is just speculative thought. My curiosity runs rampant.

 

[Jennywocky]

@Philosophyking87: [Wall of text]... You really didn't need to give that much of an explanation, it comes off as trying to bury the opposition and rather defensive. (And what's with the rather impenetrable font? That's damn hard to read. Unless you're going to use it for short bursts, maybe a different font would encourage people to more carefully read your contributions?)

Obviously you never actually said directly what you then felt you needed to explain that you never said -- that was my point, actually. We know what you explicitly said and did not say. I was describing a "tone" issue in your post that you might want to further explore and deal with. Either it's a deficiency in a communication style (because readers can easily be misled) or it's an actual flaw in your underlying assumptions.

Since you are insisting your underlying assumptions are not what your tone suggested, then maybe you just want to clean up your tone to avoid further confusion. When at least a few people are left questioning what your motivations are, chances are you're communicating in a way that is unclear. That's all.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

A bit ironic that this thread has become a microcosm of the activity that produces such low occurances of generalized stupidity...

 

[Solitaire U.]

But of course, I know that there's an "INTJ Forum," and that place also seems very far removed from the problems of common social interaction...

(* font removed for clarity.)

The (theoretical) intent of creating groups of like-minded people is indeed to isolate said groups from the problems of common social interaction. The (again, theoretical) problem with this is that it strongly implies that constructive criticism and difference of opinion are enemies to be feared.

A few years ago I stumbled upon a law enforcement oriented forum. While not specifically SJ oriented (dare we assume the majority of cops are type SJ?), the prevailing atmosphere was...how you say?...very SJ, but it had been taken to extremes. The common practice, I noticed, was to simply delete even the faintest hint of 'deviant' expression. In other words, there was no freedom whatsoever. Conforming to the prevailing intellect was a non-negotiable obligation.

A similar thing happened at INTP Central a couple years ago. It started with rumblings very similar to the OP's in this thread. When the snowball reached maximum mass and velocity, a great purge took place. Members, many of them long-standing, who were judged (yes, judged...on a supposedly INTP-oriented forum) to be guilty of 'non-INTPish tendencies and no infraction other than that, were outright banned. I wasn't banned and indeed still maintain a membership on INTPc, but that's why I joined this forum. To get away from that kind of flawed thinking.

So, as Jennywocky just advised, perhaps it would be wise to reflect on your tone. And be advised, the great INTP-iquity is by no means immune to stupidity. That other INTP board has proven this beyond doubt.

 

[Architect]

A few years ago I stumbled upon a law enforcement oriented forum. While not specifically SJ oriented (dare we assume the majority of cops are type SJ?), the prevailing atmosphere was...how you say?...very SJ, but it had been taken to extremes. The common practice, I noticed, was to simply delete even the faintest hint of 'deviant' expression. In other words, there was no freedom whatsoever. Conforming to the prevailing intellect was a non-negotiable obligation..

sounds like a religious site I found once. No dissent tolerated, even to correct factually incorrect information. Just a bunch of ninny hammers parroting the same old thing. What's the point?

 

[Philosophyking87]

[meaningless babble...]

At the end of the day, all that matters is that both you and Iss were entirely mistaken in thinking that my post was anything you guys (rather fancifully) perceived it to be. For future reference, I would advise against the reliance upon "tone" in trying to determine an author's true intentions. It's rather weak.

Also, I think that after I clearly demonstrated that you guys were absolutely off the mark in your blatant guesswork, you really didn't have to respond at all. Now, since you guys essentially derailed this thread with very poor assumptions long enough, please allow the thread to get back on topic.

This thread wasn't designed for circle jerking or discussions about whether or not my posts are too long, or what the appropriate font might be, or what should be done about the tone I used in my post. At the end of the day, it's entirely irrelevant and off topic.

Thanks...

And be advised, the great INTP-iquity is by no means immune to stupidity.

No one ever said INTPs were immune to stupidity.
Go back and carefully re-read the OP.

 

[IssphitiKOzS 2]

Wall of text just goes to show how much the guy likes to hear himself ramble. Have some consideration for the readers and keep it brief.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Wall of text just goes to show how much the guy likes to hear himself ramble. Have some consideration for the readers and keep it brief.

EDIT: Although there's nothing wrong with deciding to be more concise. Elaborate elaboration is better saved for theories and explanations.

EDIT2: As for the topic, I think due to our coalescing similarities(for example that which made us all end up here at this place, or personality type), that we are more prone to not find fault in each others' ways of thinking. I wouldn't go so far as to say the general population here is fallacy free(the less popular errors go unnoticed) or unbiased, just that seeing as we come from the same directions we're more likely to see things from the same perspective, while having the same blind spots.

With that in mind, I would say this forum caters to intellect and the fostering thereof, so there is less likely to be relatively "idiotic" or "stupid" reasoning and opinions.

 

[Solitaire U.]

...This thread wasn't designed for circle jerking or discussions about whether or not my posts are too long, or what the appropriate font might be, or what should be done about the tone I used in my post. At the end of the day, it's entirely irrelevant and off topic.

The implied circle jerk, overlong posts, font, and your tone ARE the topic. Presentation is everything. These things are far from irrelevant...they are the reason your idea isn't 'selling' so to speak. A lot to be learned there, no?

An example from P#1:

I find that I have to point out errors in other people's reasoning a lot less around here...

Is that supposed to be a compliment to 'the people around here'? Do you realize what an extremely pompous, not to mention insulting, statement you've made? That's way beyond mere condescension. After you've so brashly expressed to me, your reader, that you consider it your duty to infallibly point out other people's flawed reasoning, how can you expect me to take anything else you have to say seriously?

So you see...by appointing yourself executive chef of logic and reason, you've tainted your entire plate. Consider your above-quoted statement to be the entree, the totalitarian font and long-winded replies are the garnish you've chosen. I'd have no problem brushing a heap of parsley to one side if there was something palatable hiding underneath....

So there's another dose of constructive criticism for you. Ignoring all the aforementioned incongruities, if there is any truth to your theory, it might be along the lines of this: The difference between this board and the peasant masses is that here, you're getting feedback that amounts to something more than "You're a fucking imbecile, piss off out of here!"

Intolerance is a bitch, but ignorance is worse.

SU

 

[Reluctantly]

The irony: noting that this forum tends to be filled with logic somehow leads to a host of presumptions and illogical motive guesses... wow

Ah haha hahahahahah hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
hahahahahahha
hahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahah

And it all comes full circle; you've now ascended with Ptah.

EDIT: Although there's nothing wrong with deciding to be more concise. Elaborate elaboration is better saved for theories and explanations.

Hmmmmm...you realize this sounds like preaching right?

 

[Philosophyking87]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the general population here is fallacy free (the less popular errors go unnoticed) or unbiased, just that seeing as we come from the same directions we're more likely to see things from the same perspective, while having the same blind spots.

Here's a few direct quotes taken from the OP which demand the question: why did you believe it necessary to address the notion that "the general population here is fallacy free"?

Anyone else find that there's a lot less stupidity on this forum than elsewhere?

How does "less stupidity" at all translate over into "fallacy free"?

I find that I have to point out errors in other people's reasoning a lot less around here...

"A lot less" seems to naturally imply that "some" people on this forum indeed are in need of correction from time to time, rather than having a forum of completely fallacy free individuals.

Most people here aren't stupid enough to say things like, "It's because we have a black president"...

Again, "most" seems to indicate that some of the members of this forum are perhaps capable of saying statements of similar quality.

Are INTPs generally a lot less prone to erroneous thinking?

Again, a lot less pone =/= "fallacy free" or "immune."

-------

On the whole, there may be a few more statements I could offer as evidence against the manner in which the OP has likely been consistently misread, but I think this will suffice.

With that in mind, I would say this forum caters to intellect and the fostering thereof, so there is less likely to be relatively "idiotic" or "stupid" reasoning and opinions.

Perhaps. We can then also ask, "Why does this forum cater to intellect and the fostering thereof"? Again, correlations may exist with regard to type.

Elaborate elaboration is better saved for theories and explanations.

In my judgment, if a post seems to be consistently misread (and not to mention the fact that some even go so far as to make wild guesses based on mere tone), there seems to be adequate justification to thoroughly explain why such inaccurate interpretations of the OP are indeed mistaken.

Seriously. How are half of the responses here gonna either include a) very incorrect interpretations of the OP or b) outright suspicious assumptions based on very limited indicators, yet the author is blamed for a) "not using the appropriate tone" (which is absolutely irrelevant, if indeed people make the effort to read a bit more carefully), b) "using annoying font" (again, irrelevant as hell, not to mention nit-picky, as the ability to change the font is there for a reason), and c) "writing a wall of text for no reason" (when in fact correcting horrible motive guesses seems to me to be an adequate reason to write more than two sentences)????

My theory is that most readers did not take the time to read my post with accuracy. According to the principle of accuracy, someone's statements should be interpreted as accurately as possible, based on the exact wording and terminology used to such an end.

Clearly, as I showed, this likely was not done. Phrases like "some," "a lot less," and "most" were somehow overlooked, and instead, notions such as "immunity," "fallacy free," and "exceedingly intelligent" were somehow raised as if from thin air. Thus, I ask: next time, please take the time to read appropriately before jumping to conclusions. A slight amount of careful reading would likely have prevented this entire problem.

The implied circle jerk, overlong posts, font, and your tone ARE the topic.

Bull. This is probably one of the most unreasonable statements I've ever read (no offense).

1. Explain what specific aspects of the OP lead to "implied circle jerk." Until then, this is an unfounded notion.

2. The length of a post has nothing to do with the content.

3. The font in which a post is written is in no way logically related to the information content.

4. Tone may be effective for particular writing, but at the same time, it can also be misleading. Hence, it's a very unreliable means of accurately interpreting any written material. As I said, it's best to take the time to carefully note key words and terminology, as they may not be entirely congruent with the tone in which the material seems to be written.

Given this, I cannot say I agree with your assertion here at all.
It makes absolutely no sense.

Is that supposed to be a compliment to 'the people around here'?

It can be interpreted as a compliment, or it can merely be an honest observation. In such situations, it's best to make no assumptions and instead ask for clarity.

Do you realize what an extremely pompous, not to mention insulting, statement you've made?

If it's generally true, I have no apologies. I don't care much for euphemism.
Sorry to hurt your feelings.

Logically, it only makes sense to complain about someone's seemingly "arrogant" and "pompous" statements, if indeed one knows such statements to be unwarranted. You, however, do not. As far as I am aware, though, finding flaws in reasoning for me is second nature, and there does seem to be an abundance of such flawed reasoning in many areas of life (with the exception of this forum, generally).

I am brutally honest, no matter how offensive it may seem to others. Simple as that.

That's way beyond mere condescension.

Condescension is to make a point of the fact that one is thought to be superior to others in some fashion. I, however, did not make a point of this notion. I only honestly observed that I tend to have to correct flawed reasoning in many areas of life, except largely around here.

After you've so brashly expressed to me, your reader, that you consider it your duty to infallibly point out other people's flawed reasoning, how can you expect me to take anything else you have to say seriously?

Some people do tend to have a knack for pointing out flaws in other people's reasoning, and many do so out of inclination. I merely happen to be one of them. I don't see how this at all justifies some inability to take someone serious.

So you see...by appointing yourself executive chef of logic and reason, you've tainted your entire plate.

Again, you seem to operate on the assumption that my statements are inaccurate. Yet, along with lacking evidence for this notion, you forget that many NTs (in general) are often capable of doing just what I honestly claim from a point of introspection.

Seriously. Imagine someone who usually beats most people at chess. Then imagine that person telling someone, "I usually don't find much competition when it comes to most chess players." Is this statement indeed arrogant? Or, is merely an honest observation of the facts of the situation? If someone literally is often better than most chess players, I don't see how people can so easily perceive such statements to be "so self-righteous"!!!

Lmfao... I think rather than this notion that I should euphemize my thoughts, I think, instead, that readers should simply control their intolerance of seeming arrogance and condescension, as there's absolutely no basis upon which one can accurately know that any particular statements are indeed unwarranted. So again, I'm simply honest. If it offends some people to know that I tend to have to correct bad reasoning on a daily basis, then so be it. I have no apologies for my honesty. Ever.

Consider your above-quoted statement to be the entree, the totalitarian font and long-winded replies are the garnish you've chosen.

Lol, totalitarian font??? How many more blatant assumptions will be made in this thread by the end? Rather than read -- accurately -- what is written in the OP, it's astonishing to note that people are actually affected by the mere font one chooses. The problem with this is that you can never be truly certain that someone chose a font for the reason you believe. Suppose I chose the font merely because it looks aesthetically appealing to me? Suppose I just felt like changing from an old font to a new one on pure whim? Thus, applying the label of "totalitarian" to the font makes absolutely no sense. It's, again, mindless guesswork and extremely nebulous speculation.

At this point, I'm not sure what's worse: blatant stupidity found out in other areas of life, or the high amount of intuitive guesswork which occurs around here, when one merely decides to say something honest of their relation to others, as objectively as they can. Jeez...

All I'm going to say is this: some people are literally better a logical reasoning than others, so it's not at all surprising (or offensive) to me when someone makes the claim that they often have to correct the reasoning of most individuals in daily life. Sure, they may be mistaken and are merely saying something from pure narcissism, but without knowing the person, there's really justification for such presumptions... and there's definitely no warrant for offense... lol

Have some consideration for the readers and keep it brief.

Brevity isn't always adequate.
Therefore, brevity isn't always a virtue.
Readers should realize this.

 

[GYX_Kid]

tl;dr, honestly.

What it looks like: You're running circles in your head, you want to "win" arguments using mountains of thoughts you've collected while running these circles, and then you assume that somehow people are going to give a shit.

At least make it engaging, and to-the-point...

 

[Philosophyking87]

tl;dr, honestly.

What it looks like: You're running circles in your head, you want to "win" arguments using mountains of thoughts you've collected while running these circles, and then you assume that somehow people are going to give a shit.

At least make it engaging, and to-the-point...

The substance value of your post = zero.

 

[GYX_Kid]

The people who like you = zero

 

[Philosophyking87]

The people who like you = zero

Not only is it unfortunate that you insist upon creating off topic posts, but you fail to realize that popularity is logically irrelevant. So until you care to post something relevant...

 

[Zero989]

"You only made this thread because you're INTP"

 

[Roran]

You say tone doesn't matter. Let's give a counter-example. I want to say that I generally do not like people. One way I could say that would be "Fuck everybody." Another way would be to say "I'm not a people person." Same message, wildly different implications.

 

[Solitaire U.]

*Long exhalation* Yeah, well, whatever.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

@Philosophyking87

I was responding to the general topic laid out in the OP. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or refute what you were saying or doing, just offering my own perspective of impersonal issues that were brought up.

 

[Philosophyking87]

@Philosophyking87

I was responding to the general topic laid out in the OP. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or refute what you were saying or doing, just offering my own perspective of impersonal issues that were brought up.

My apologies.

 

[Hadoblado]

The people who like you = zero

HAHAHAHA Zero is a subsequent poster


This entire thread has me in stitches! Is this shit deliberate?

 

[Solitaire U.]

...popularity is logically irrelevant.

Let's have a contest. We'll call your corner 'relevant logic' and my corner 'practical logic'.

Here's the challenge: Back up your claim that popularity is logically irrelevant in 250 WORDS OR LESS. Then I'll respond with my claim that popularity is BOTH logically relevant and logically practical, also in 250 words or less. Whoever can best explain his claim in the FEWEST WORDS wins. We can put the results to a vote by anyone reading this thread who wishes to participate.

This is Philosophy 101 for you, so you should easily win this. I've never set foot in a Philosophy classroom in my life.

What do you say?

 

[Philosophyking87]

HAHAHAHA Zero is a subsequent poster


This entire thread has me in stitches! Is this shit deliberate?

hahahaha

 

[Philosophyking87]

Let's have a contest. We'll call your corner 'relevant logic' and my corner 'practical logic'.

Here's the challenge: Back up your claim that popularity is logically irrelevant in 250 WORDS OR LESS. Then I'll respond with my claim that popularity is BOTH logically relevant and logically practical, also in 250 words or less. Whoever can best explain his claim in the FEWEST WORDS wins. We can put the results to a vote by anyone reading this thread who wishes to participate.

This is Philosophy 101 for you, so you should easily win this. I've never set foot in a Philosophy classroom in my life.

What do you say?

Yeah, I'm aware that popularity isn't always entirely irrelevant. It's just not necessarily a great indicator of the truth of any matter. In some way, I'm sure someone, perhaps yourself, can indeed find a way of connecting popularity to the topic of this thread. It just doesnt seem probable that "the people who like you = zero" was meant as a serious indicator of perhaps the weakness od my argument. It was probably meant merely as a retort.