Behavior of the Masses=good. INTP=bad.

[sagewolf]

(Rant warning.) We were given a list of positive and negative traits in French class the other day to describe ourselves. What I'm linking to this post is the fact that 'casanièr(e)' was described as a bad one.

A "casanièr(e)" is someone who would rather stay at home than be out enjoying social interaction with others.

That is apparently a bad thing in this world. Why? Because most people like socialisation. So do I, in moderation. Just because I don't like it all the time, though, I'm apparently defective. Well, I am, but I'm thinking of a different interpretation of the word 'defect' (if not an entirely accurate one).

Another example in my school is sport: it's a very sporty school, so everyone has to congratulate the teams when they win, and they're allowed to be out for entire days, which holds back the rest of the class while they play, but this is allowed because this is apparently so important. What's more, my peers feel obliged to guide me to sport in the manner of evangelists, away from the temptations of books, writing or art. That really made me mad, and I eventually told them I didn't enjoy chasing a ball around a field in the manner of a dog. (Nothing against dogs. ) They left me alone after that.

I'm sick of hearing that certain traits are desirable just because the majority possesses them. And I'd like to know what everyone else here thinks of this: does majority rule? Or does diversity deserve to be acknowledged?

 

[Ogion]

You know, that is one of the big problems of Democracy. That the majority rules is to prevent single individuals or small groups to opress the rest. That is a good thing. But, and it is an inherent but, it does not end opression. It only leads to opression of the minority by the majority.
So i think Democracy is very utilitaristic here: It does not end opression, it just facilitates that the majority won't be opressed (because they become the opressors)...
A system without opression would have to be a system without rule (and that not only means institutions. A kid bullying another, totally non-related to government or such structures, is still an opressor. So it would have to be given that noone can bully, or harm, or force, another...)

Ogion

 

[fullerene]

*nods*

I've been going through one of my isolationist periods over the last few weeks, and it doesn't seem like I'll feel like doing anything with anyone anytime soon, either. That in itself is fine, but what's been really getting to me is every time my roommate goes out (esfp, if I had to guess), he sounds disappointed that I'm not going, too. Not disappointed in the sense of "I wish you would come out," but disappointed because we both wanted to room together, and now it's like I'm not doing what roommates should.

All I can say about the people you know, though... is wait 'til you can go off to college. If you find yourself one that's centered around the stuff you enjoy, you really don't have to put up with that kind of crap much anymore. Er... at least it works with scientists, because science people always like to talk about science. I'm not sure if writers like to talk about writing... but I'd bet that artists like to talk about art. I think you'll like it a lot better once you get away from high school

 

[sagewolf]

All the colleges I'm picking are art colleges, mostly, so yeah, I think I'll do fine in college. I was talking more about the perception of society in general, though, but since I spend so much time in that dump (the school) examples from it were the only ones I could come up with.

@ Ogion: that's my problem with democracy. Just because the majority agree on something doesn't mean they're right. Of course, the minority probably isn't right either: it's perfectly possible that no-body is right. Maybe the problem is the perception of any stance or opinion as having the potential to be 'right' or 'wrong', or the refusal to consider the merits and disadvantages of all possibilities equally, rather than just adopting a policy which becomes 'right'.

 

[fullerene]

haha but for what it's worth... I think the majority is wrong more often than not.

ok tho... in that case, society is definitely unkind to both INxP types I think. We're both the dreaming, wandering types who build up ideas and rarely do anything with them (just with different focuses), absolutely hate heirarchy and being forced to do things we don't want to (or be something we're not)... and society is built around that kind of stuff. As bad as school seems... I kind of think post-graduation is going to be much worse. The idea of working for some business or government is repulsive to me, but they supply most of the jobs. I need to find something else to do, immediately...

 

[Auburn]

haha but for what it's worth... I think the majority is wrong more often than not.

ok tho... in that case, society is definitely unkind to both INxP types I think. We're both the dreaming, wandering types who build up ideas and rarely do anything with them (just with different focuses), absolutely hate hierarchy and being forced to do things we don't want to (or be something we're not)... and society is built around that kind of stuff.

So true!

Cryptonia, was it you who mentioned somewhere else that you were reading a book which describes the leader as hated by the majority population, and yet that didn't change the fact that he was a great leader?

If only it was possible for the wisest to rule, not the most popular... *sighs*

 

[fullerene]

I was so confused the first time cause I read that as "what was that book you talked about that mentioned..."

haha so no, it wasn't me.

 

[sagewolf]

Too bad. Now we don't know what the book was.

That makes a lot of sense, though, the ability of a leader not being linked to how well he is perceived. (I'm sure hearing it would make the current occupant of the White House very relieved. Not that I think it applies to him, but...)

The wisest probably avoid politics and being responsible for other people altogether. That's another reason why democracy is somewhat flawed. Who would want those jobs? People who think they know what everyone should be doing.

Then we all have a big problem.

 

[Kidege]

About the casanier-yness, the Trésor says the word's original meaning was "money lender". Back in the Middle Ages when everybody was toiling in the fields and what not, a stay-at-home money lender couldn't be that popular.

But you're right, it shouldn't (still) have a negative connotation.

 

[Decaf]

When it comes to a poorly like president being a good leader, I think it comes down to this quote which I will submit in lue of a well thought out argument...

"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine

By that measure, the Bush administration falls into a bottomless pit of fire, brimstone and gnashing of teeth. And snoring.

___

I wonder if any cultures are accepting of those that are opposite the predominate cultural personality...

 

[sagewolf]

About the casanier-yness, the Trésor says the word's original meaning was "money lender". Back in the Middle Ages when everybody was toiling in the fields and what not, a stay-at-home money lender couldn't be that popular.

But you're right, it shouldn't (still) have a negative connotation.

To put the context in which it was used into perspective, one of the boys in the class had to ask what a pronoun was at one point. We were only using it as a way to describe ourselves for our orals, and no-one, not even the teacher, in our class is a native French speaker. I see how the negative connotation could have come about, but I don't see how it would affect our class.

"That government is best which governs least." - Thomas Paine

By that measure, the Bush administration falls into a bottomless pit of fire, brimstone and gnashing of teeth. And snoring.

And then we bomb him. Over and over. The irony would be delicious.

 

[Agent Intellect]

i don't want to sound like an old timer blessing the young-uns with wisdom, but for me it seems that the being different thing gets easier as you get older. christ knows i had a hell of a time during school (i don't even feel like going into it) but since i graduated, its been a lot easier handling my INTPness.... (god, make it stop)

 

[Kidege]

I see how the negative connotation could have come about, but I don't see how it would affect our class

Hum. So it has a negative connotation both in France and in your class. Jerks.

I'm not a native speaker either, but I went and read some blogs and forums of natives and for the most part it's negative (lazy, boring person who won't go out, sometimes a miser who refuses to spend money in restaurants/cafes, or a total slug who won't set a foot out of their homes to take the trash out). Still, some people use it to describe themselves in a proud manner: yes, I like staying in, what about it?

Let me say it myself: Yes, I'm casanièr(e). My current house is the nicest place on Earth.

 

[Ermine]

I don't think the anti-casanier tendency originates in government as much as it does in economic philosophy and survival instincts. For example, in the US, capitalism is not only an economic system, but a way of life. The same could be said about any predominant economic philosophy. Why does the economy have so much to do with our way of life? Because on an animalistic level, we as a species have discovered that money equals survival, and the more you have, the better you survive and the more mates you attract.

Why am I telling you this? Because on an instinctual level, productive, outgoing, social people are favored. They get "things" done and are openly acknowledged and favored for that. The INTPs, on the other hand, are not as much acknowledged or liked because they don't openly show their likeliness for economic survival. According to the masses, they don't contribute to the system because they aren't "team players' and aren't as driven to get things done. This would hinder with the "system". People who aren't team players that don't get things done aren't automatically favored economically, and this supposedly denotes that the INTP has less likelihood of survival. People, as animals, don't like people who aren't likely to survive.

Of course, the generalization that INTPs can't be productive team players is a huge generalization, but masses and groups act on generalizations, not on a case to case basis.

Sorry if this is kind of hard to follow. It was hard for me to explain adequately.

 

[Perseus]

A "casanièr(e)" is someone who would rather stay at home than be out enjoying social interaction with others.


A new word for me.

Increasingly lately, going out and meeting people has been self expression rather than dialogue. I can go out and observe, watching people, watching nature, watching the river flow. Trying to avoid the Guardans and seducing women (running out of available ones that are not crazy, or will not sell everything).

I like to achieve something every day, something new to see, a new word, an increase in the bank balance (unlikey), purchase something interesting.

 

[Decaf]

People who aren't team players that don't get things done aren't automatically favored economically, and this supposedly denotes that the INTP has less likelihood of survival.

Very well said. I think this changes when with the coming of revolution. INTPs are humanity's natural fulcrums for change. Some types crave change, some types can make change happen, but its the INTP that those types turn to when they look for cohesion in their views of a better world. The number of INTPs (as I have come to believe they are) that were members of the political leadership in the American and French revolutions are staggeringly out of normal proportion.

American Revolution: obvious examples include Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin

French Revolution: I'm less familiar with the key players aside from Napolean who came into the revolution relatively late, but look at the Metric System. A paradigm shift made to take scientific ideas and put them into a cohesive model for ease of use. That has INTP written all over it.

OK, all that to say, I think in times of sweeping changes INTPs prove their innate survivability and thus their animalistic value. We look into the future, prepare and adapt. We are not afraid of revolution. Name a type more suited to that task and I'll eat my hat. I just wish that those talents weren't wasted on things like being "early adopters" of technology. Its kind of a pathetic showcase of an astoundingly powerful trait.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I'm sick of hearing that certain traits are desirable just because the majority possesses them. And I'd like to know what everyone else here thinks of this: does majority rule? Or does diversity deserve to be acknowledged?

Perhaps this time I shall let others speak for me:

The masses have no habit of self reliance or original action. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd. - Bertrand Russell

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted. - Martin Luther King Jr.

It never troubles the wolf how many the sheep may be. - Vergil

I think that sums it up for me.

Oh, and sheeple is one of my favourite words.

INTPs are humanity's natural fulcrums for change. Some types crave change, some types can make change happen, but its the INTP that those types turn to when they look for cohesion in their views of a better world.

Umm... this made me sit up and think. This never occured to me. It's going to take awhile for me to absorb. Can you elaborate any on this?

 

[Perseus]

About the casanier-yness, the Trésor says the word's original meaning was "money lender". Back in the Middle Ages when everybody was toiling in the fields and what not, a stay-at-home money lender couldn't be that popular.

But you're right, it shouldn't (still) have a negative connotation.

What is the Trésor please?

Self discovery research: Tresor de la langue francaise: comprehensive etymological and historical dictionary of the French language

 

[Decaf]

Umm... this made me sit up and think. This never occured to me. It's going to take awhile for me to absorb. Can you elaborate any on this?

There is no better set up of functions to deal with imagining the end result of sweeping change than subjective thinking (which allows the process to stray away from reality) coupled with objective intuition (which helps the individual see the patterns of how certain conditions affect a situation), subjective sensing (a strong focus on history and finding meaning through a view of the present as being only a stopping point between what was and what can be) and an uncontrolled objective feeling (forming attachments to the wellbeing of humanity as a whole).

Any of those pieces can be weak or lacking in an individual INTP, but I believe it is part of our potential to be those that can imagine the peace that might be after a war that hasn't happened.

We've talked before how we as a group tend not to think of ourselves as pessimistic or optimistic most of the time. That stems from our overriding desire for precision and truth. A pessimist will not plan 20 steps in advance because it isn't worth the effort and an optimist won't believe they have to. A realist plans because they know that success is only possible if you arrange your pieces carefully.

I don't believe those qualities are as true about ENTPs because I believe they use their thinking function only insofar as it helps them cause the changes they desire. ENTJs can marshall forces like none other, but their thinking is objective and does not depart far from reality before reminding itself of its purpose. INTJs are too bound to reality and trying to find certainty to delve into the world of the uncertain future where EVERYTHING must be taken into account. There are many INTJ sci-fi authors, but Frank Herbert and J.R.R. Tolkien were INTPs. We are the only ones who find appeal in the idea of creating an entire fictional universe that no one will see half of.

There are, of course, more types than simply rationals who work in the realm of paradigm shifts. Not SJs, as they live primarily in the past. Not SPs, as they live in a present. There are NFs, but without trying to be offensive, I don't believe they are up for the sheer volume of impersonal calculation required. INFPs may play a role, though I'm not sure what it would be yet.

So what specific skills do INTPs develop instinctively that might be of service. Theres strong language skills that can be found in documents such as the Declaration of Independence. A natural sense of independence which allows us to freely disassociate ourselves from the world we are rebelling from. For a liquid solution to become a solid even at the correct temperature it must find somewhere to form the first crystal bond. Once the first bond is made the whole liquid can transform, but not before. We are that first bond.

Have you ever felt excited by the prospect of destabilizing change? By the possibility that everything around you might change and no idea whether its for the better or worse? Have you ever wondered why you make plans to take over the world despite no desire to lead? Nerdiness is not what we have been brought up to believe it is. It is a future-situated style of thinking that doesn't care about immediacies like hygiene and fashion. It cares about the potential of a particular piece of legislation or technology to rearrange the world. Let them make fun of us for our lack of paying attention to now. We're the ones who live in soon. Someone has to.

 

[Jesin]

Ehh, I'm not so sure about all that. Yes, INTPs are some of the most likely people to bring about change, but there are others. I mean, all Ns to some extent, and especially NPs.

There are different ways to bring about change.

 

[Decaf]

There are different ways to bring about change.

True (I'm always impressed at the speed at which you can churn through my gibberish). I wrote all that in the haze after waking up, but I firmly believe that some kinds of change are particularly suited to the INTP.

I suppose I'm trying to dispel the myth that we are always uninvolved or not suited to the application of our ideas. That our imagination isn't for any realm but that of fiction. There have been great INTPs in the past and there can be today, but our culture saps our confidence. We may retain the traits our environments disparage out of stubbornness, but many of us are cynical about its use, believing that others are better for the task. I believe that all weaknesses are also strengths, including our tendency to fall back onto our own reality when confronted with an unacceptable environment.

I agree that NPs in general are well suited to the kind of change I'm talking about, but I suspect that ENTPs are more interested in change than paradigm shifts. Their dominant function is objective and ties them to reality despite how much they wish to change it. ENFPs and INFPs are far more interested in making their environments match their ideals rather than their ideas. That's probably a healthier outlook on life, but I don't believe it attracts them to what we're discussing.

Responsibility. If you believe in evolution than you would suspect that any genetic consistency in a species is present because it is in some way advantageous (otherwise those that possessed them would die out due to entropy). From that perspective I believe that personality types are part of how the human brain functions because the different types that develop are part of a complicated checks and balances system that makes the human race successful. There is no type that isn't in some way integral to this system. When one type is excluded from participating in the culture, the culture becomes a charicature of itself. I believe the United States at present is most disrespectful of INFPs and low and behold as a culture we don't know what we believe. We have lost touch with our moral compass and act often without forthought of how we will feel about our actions after the fact. Granted, its a chicken or the egg problem, but I'm gonna go with chicken.

So why did I start that with responsibility? I believe it is the responsibility of each type to participate in their culture such that those things don't happen. If we're the ones looking far into the future and describing what we see with as little bias as we can muster, then doesn't that make us responsible for that part of the perception of a society? On a small scale that all makes perfect sense, but when we go large scale the idea seems to be lost in translation.

 

[Perseus]

Ehh, I'm not so sure about all that. Yes, INTPs are some of the most likely people to bring about change, but there are others. I mean, all Ns to some extent, and especially NPs.

There are different ways to bring about change.

INTPs tend to suggest change. It is the ENTJs that carry out the change as leaders. Other types may as well.

Think of a change:

1) DNA sequencing
2) Bringing the computer into the home
3) The Channel Tunnel

and then work out the dynamics of why it happened and who got the credit and who deserved
the credit?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I haven't looked at INTP abilities in this light before, though it seems perfectly suited to the qualities attributed. I could probably describe it as an epiphany.

Would it be that INTP's can visualise change and make the connections/steps/paths and 'architecture' upon which change can occur clearer or better than other types?
Would this point to other types mis-labelling INTP as 'day-dreamers' or 'wool-gathers' when in actuality, the detachment of an INTP allows the positing of possibilities and the formation of abstract concepts and ideals?
In other words, whereas other types may be able to implement changes, INTP's have inherent abilities which contribute to laying out multiple possibilities stemming from the 'where we are' to the multiple 'where we could be', including visions which others could not even imagine (paradigm shifts)?
The idea of responsibility is still sinking in.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Have you ever felt excited by the prospect of destabilizing change? By the possibility that everything around you might change and no idea whether its for the better or worse? Have you ever wondered why you make plans to take over the world despite no desire to lead?

There is much much more in what you wrote which I would like to address, but what immediately struck me when I read this part was the revolutionary attitude of the 60's. We were going to change the world, but using 'love, not war'. Some of us truly thought this was possible. This was the age of many various paradigm shifts which were labelled 'Rousseauian day-dreams' and 'fantasies of children', which were summarily dismissed by the vast majority.
To me, this was the last great attempt at any kind of revolution in thought in North America.
Again, you have truly shed a different light on some thoughts which have been swimming around in my head.