Do INTP wish to improve this world?

[yash]

I took the test, some test like 16personalities rated me intp whereas others intj
When i read the description of INTP, i felt as if it was made for me
and even though I could relate to some traits of INTJ (probably because of similar nature) there was one thing that bothered me the most
INTJ has a pretty specific nature that they wish to improve the world whereas there is no such thing in INTP's description
Also I have always related to fictional villains who wished to improve the world (even if it means that we have to destroy it first)
so here is my problem even though i relate to all of INTP traits, I relate more to the fictional characters that are classified under INTJ

So if you people can tell me, if you also wish to improve the world at all cost
my soul can finally be at peace, after finally figuring out if i am intp or intj

 

[al.otakupunk]

The way I figure, just because your type description doesn't mention something doesn't mean it's not there.
Case in point: I took the test at 16personalities as well. Although I relate the most to INTP out of all the types, I also have a somewhat optimistic outlook on life (not really pure optimism, I'd say I'm a realist, or maybe an optimistic pessimist) and a desire to abolish injustice, which is also a trait of INFPs. One of the things that knocks me out of INFP, however, is that I suck at people. XD
But to answer your question: I think INTP's can have a desire to improve the world, mostly because of the whole "searching for knowledge and truth" trait, as well as the desire to pass that knowledge on to others. But anyone's free to disagree with anything I said, because I might be oversimplifying.

 

[RaBind]

Personally I couldn't care less. Mostly because its more beneficial for me to care so little, because the gap between my power and the power needed to change the world is so impossibly large. Ergo I choose to only mull over options that I can take.

Even if I was in a position to make great changes, it'd probably be an intellectual pursuit more than anything, the way you word it sounds almost as if it should be a virtue, and although that may be correct, I'm very much not inclined to make such a thing a personal quest/desire.

The Ti function is inward focused, so intps are more inclined to change their perception and understanding of the world then intjs, who are heavy Te users.

 

[Inquisitor]

INTJ has a pretty specific nature that they wish to improve the world whereas there is no such thing in INTP's description

I call BS on that. INTPs are interested in helping humanity as a whole. INTJs are more interested in solving the world's toughest problems.

INTJ vs. INTP: Type Differences

With this in mind, we can see how INTJs and INTPs work in different directions. INTJs focus in a more direct way on ways the world can be improved and, in the process, come to better understand themselves (Fi). INTPs, by contrast, focus first on understanding and improving themselves (Ti) and, in the process, hope to provide a roadmap for others to do the same (Fe). The way of the Buddha is in many ways characteristic of the INTP approach—figure out how to save yourself first, then help others do the same. In this light, the idea of grassroots or “bottom-up” change holds particular appeal for INTPs.

If you are INTP, inferior function (Fe) will lead you towards wanting to dedicate your life towards helping others. If you are INTJ, the inferior (Se) will lead you towards jobs that entail "sensory novelty and material security." You sound like an INTP caught in the grips of Fe.

INTJ Personality Profile

INTP Personality Profile

 

[yash]

It's not exactly the fact that I want to help people, I just want it to improve

For ex, I don't mind if humans are eventually wiped out and replaced/mutilated into a superior species.
I consider death as a natural part of evolving, and I believe if we are to rise again, it would be from the ashes of this current world

It's not about helping people, it's about solving everything wrong with this world
Making sure nothing bad could ever happen again

 

[Anktark]

I think I am getting the gist of it, but could OP clarify what is meant by "world"? It's a rather ambiguous and broad term.

Personally, I want to improve my understanding of the world and since I am how I understand the world, at the same time I will improve myself. Slowly burning, breaking and reshaping myself constantly, not to better fit it with the current, but to transcend the old one.
As for helping others, I am willing to share the knowledge and provide solutions which seem like an obvious choice, but it's still up to others to use them. I don't want to force others into enlightening- that's a fool's errand.

 

[Brontosaurie]

actually there are 64 types and the letters are wrong.

the words are all wrong too

each type has subtype introverted/extraverted + light/dark, yielding a total of 64, perfectly in line with my previous assertion.

the INTP isn't called INTP but 4 other things.

 

[yash]

I think I am getting the gist of it, but could OP clarify what is meant by "world"? It's a rather ambiguous and broad term.

I guess you can say "mankind",I wish to create a future with no war, no religion and everyone having a purpose in life

For ex, I would prefer that instead of being bought up by their parents, every minor is taken to a school, comprising of different diversity
They won't have knowledge of their religion, their parents wealth, their nationality, instead of getting told what to do, they would themselves find their beliefs and what's right for them

 

[Torojan]

actually there are 64 types and the letters are wrong.

the words are all wrong too

each type has subtype introverted/extraverted + light/dark, yielding a total of 64, perfectly in line with my previous assertion.

the INTP isn't called INTP but 4 other things.

Could you explain what you mean by this? You're saying there's introverted+light INTP, extroverted+light INTP, introverted+dark INTP and extroverted+dark INTP? If so, please elaborate on this. If not, clarify for me.


Anyway, do I wish to improve this world? It's more like I wish it would improve itself, not actually me doing the fixing. If I were ever put in a position of power to improve the world, sure I would take a crack at it, but it's rather unlikely. The best I could see myself doing is influencing others (of power) one by one.

 

[Inquisitor]

I guess you can say "mankind",I wish to create a future with no war, no religion and everyone having a purpose in life

For ex, I would prefer that instead of being bought up by their parents, every minor is taken to a school, comprising of different diversity
They won't have knowledge of their religion, their parents wealth, their nationality, instead of getting told what to do, they would themselves find their beliefs and what's right for them

Manna

This guy offers one interesting solution to "the problem" already. I take issue with some of the stuff in Manna 2, such as cybernetic implants, but overall...I think he nailed it minus a few things. If we ever want to reach the state you describe, we are going to need robots (both large and nano) and "strong" AI. Genetics may also play a role, although I am personally against it. I would also add offworld resource and energy collection (e.g. asteroid/planetary mining operations as well as orbital solar collectors) to that. We are running out of certain critical resources here on earth and without unlimited energy, there's no way to recycle waste.

Anyway...I think you need to do some more pondering, reading, and researching before a clear answer emerges for you. Personality Junkie truly is the best introductory resource out there for INTPs. He's also pretty good with the other types, but since he's INTP himself, that's his specialty. I'm fairly certain every long-time member on this forum would agree with me on that.

This one aspect of your personality (desire to create a perfect society) is insufficient to judge what your type is, let alone be the deciding factor between INTP and INTJ. If you read the links I posted above, despite differing in only one letter, INTP and INTJ actually have none of the same functions in their stack...so they are in fact very different cats. Do you have an understanding of the functional stack? For INTP it is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. INTJ stack is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. Do you understand what this means? Type is primarily assessed by discovering what your top two functions are, not by using MBTI personality tests, which are notoriously unreliable.

 

[Rualani]

The communication devices that they used in that story were pretty mind blowing. I would think there would be a lot of discipline not to spam everyone with ones thoughts.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Could you explain what you mean by this? You're saying there's introverted+light INTP, extroverted+light INTP, introverted+dark INTP and extroverted+dark INTP? If so, please elaborate on this. If not, clarify for me.


Anyway, do I wish to improve this world? It's more like I wish it would improve itself, not actually me doing the fixing. If I were ever put in a position of power to improve the world, sure I would take a crack at it, but it's rather unlikely. The best I could see myself doing is influencing others (of power) one by one.

sorry that was just my bastardization of typology and nothing that belongs in what seems to be an intro crash course that you're conducting for yourself across several threads. basically i've noted (or imagined) that types can fulfill differing archetypal roles depending on their health (which tends to self-resonate and gravitate toward the extreme much like type does according to the jungian model). it then becomes an additional variable which can be integrated into the typology model rather than just supplementing it as an external consideration in the formation of a full understanding of someone. i also noted that the so-called cognitive functions really don't need to deal with intro/extraversion in their definition. it's more a set of core conflicts in the human psyche. introducing the subject/object dichotomy at this stage just messes things up and leads to the many confusions surrounding typology. but it's interesting to think of it as another additional parameter in the typology model. so INTP isn't by assumption an introverted type then. it is a type that refuses to play along (or however one conceptualizes what is called Ti) but the introversion/extraversion is an additional factor outside of that basic archetypal ideal. so yes, this would yield 4 kinds of INTP. and they wouldn't be called INTP because another nomenclature is required - one which omits the superfluous assumptions inherited from jung all the way to mainstream typology.

i don't have examples for all types. it's just an idea for how to refine/expand/explore the typology model and its implications and its structure. it doesn't really belong in your thread, just felt cheeky dumping it here.

about improving the world: yes that's something i think about a lot. i quite firmly believe that continuously adjusting and meta-analyzing ones world-view is the best way to improve the world. i don't think much of "doing" things. i think the real doing is mostly just what happens when truth and love prevail. it's extremely difficult to trace the real effects of any one decisive action. many have received unwarranted praise for intention and appearance. the urge to "do something about it" seems to me a very dangerous bias which creates nasty, stubborn thought viruses, dogmatic religious backwards thinking. it muddies the mind. a thorough analysis is way superior to activism. and the analysis must admit incompleteness of knowledge. activism (in a broad sense), religion and the false attribution of systemic causal cascades to will-powered agents or agencies: these are all products of a reluctance to admit the unknown as a domain of reality, a fear of the unknown. recognition is basically a joke to me so far, though it may evolve into something substantial. i'd welcome it. not sure how to tackle the unknown but it deserves to be discerned from death.

 

[Analyzer]

about improving the world: yes that's something i think about a lot. i quite firmly believe that continuously adjusting and meta-analyzing ones world-view is the best way to improve the world. i don't think much of "doing" things. i think the real doing is mostly just what happens when truth and love prevail. it's extremely difficult to trace the real effects of any one decisive action. many have received unwarranted praise for intention and appearance. the urge to "do something about it" seems to me a very dangerous bias which creates nasty, stubborn thought viruses, dogmatic religious backwards thinking. it muddies the mind. a thorough analysis is way superior to activism. and the analysis must admit incompleteness of knowledge. activism (in a broad sense), religion and the false attribution of systemic causal cascades to will-powered agents or agencies: these are all products of a reluctance to admit the unknown as a domain of reality, a fear of the unknown. recognition is basically a joke to me so far, though it may evolve into something substantial. i'd welcome it. not sure how to tackle the unknown but it deserves to be discerned from death.

I pretty much agree with this. This reminds me of the Hayekian idea of dispersed knowledge. In fact I think his article "The Use of Knowledge in Society" is one of the most important writings on the consequences of trying to improve, change, modify, plan the world. How do humans expect to improve the world when the most basic social structure the family, is widely dysfunctional?

The best you might be able to do is present the world with one improved unit — yourself. This takes continuous self-analysis/self-knowledge like you say. Perhaps this itself is a psychological bias but it might be unavoidable(psychological egoism). As far as taking some sort of action I think provoking peoples thoughts leads to more individuals analyzing their own thinking/worldview. Beneath all the assumptions we live off of, there are questions so deep that the level of our ignorance does not even account for it all. These moralists have no chance. So it seems if your really keen on trying to improve the world all one can do is be a consistent critic of ideas.

 

[Torojan]

sorry that was just my bastardization of typology and nothing that belongs in what seems to be an intro crash course that you're conducting for yourself across several threads. basically i've noted (or imagined) that types can fulfill differing archetypal roles depending on their health (which tends to self-resonate and gravitate toward the extreme much like type does according to the jungian model). it then becomes an additional variable which can be integrated into the typology model rather than just supplementing it as an external consideration in the formation of a full understanding of someone. i also noted that the so-called cognitive functions really don't need to deal with intro/extraversion in their definition. it's more a set of core conflicts in the human psyche. introducing the subject/object dichotomy at this stage just messes things up and leads to the many confusions surrounding typology. but it's interesting to think of it as another additional parameter in the typology model. so INTP isn't by assumption an introverted type then. it is a type that refuses to play along (or however one conceptualizes what is called Ti) but the introversion/extraversion is an additional factor outside of that basic archetypal ideal. so yes, this would yield 4 kinds of INTP. and they wouldn't be called INTP because another nomenclature is required - one which omits the superfluous assumptions inherited from jung all the way to mainstream typology.

i don't have examples for all types. it's just an idea for how to refine/expand/explore the typology model and its implications and its structure. it doesn't really belong in your thread, just felt cheeky dumping it here.

"...an intro crash course that you're conducting for yourself across several threads." Haha so true! What a great way to describe it

"...a set of core conflicts in the human psyche." I bought the concept of introversion/extroversion not needing to be associated with cognitive functions, but I'm not sure what conflict means in this particular phrase. Conflicts in the psyche...sounds like the functions battle each other or something? Idk, that's why I ask

I think I got the rest of what you were trying to say. Introversion and extroversion aren't very related to the network of cognitive functions. They just happen to be easy labels to use in modern typology, right? To be more precise, we'd have to call it something else? I wonder what.

Side note: can we be penalized for derailing? should this be brought into private messaging?