Do INTPs tend to be stuck up?

[The Introvert]

Or is this just an abnormality in the data (this forum).

Although a pretty common description of the INTP is someone who is a true introvert, and avoids confrontation, many of you here seem to be direct and unrelenting in your pursuits of (God knows what) and I wonder if it's an anomaly or a facade (or the description is inaccurate).

Not naming names, although I could.

Why is it that once a (proclaimed) RIGID INTP gets into intellectual battle, they fight to the death of unimportant, insignificant data? I thought you all were Ne; why so nit-picky? Is it inferior Fe feeling inadequate? What gives?

Also, it seems like you get butt-hurt so easily if someone disagrees with what you say. Interesting indeed.

\\RANT

 

[TimeAsylums]

Er, no.

Direct and unrelenting in the pursuit of an answer (the truth) perhaps, but I don't see that as stuck up.

The answer >>>>

 

[The Introvert]

Er, no.

Direct and unrelenting in the pursuit of an answer (the truth) perhaps, but I don't see that as stuck up.

The answer >>>>

But it's never about the truth. It comes down to who is right, who is the most 'objective'.

There's a misunderstanding that objectivity>subjectivity in any situation. I argue that neither is more important than the other, even in the most seemingly obvious situations (science for objectivity, or art in subjectivity).

I have a feeling this thread is striking a chord with me at a deeper level and I'm misdirecting my anger, but nonetheless some of the blame falls within the context of "logic", and who else to use as a scapegoat but the INTP?

I think it's a big mistake to assume that logic = being correct. Truth and logic have been wrongly conjoined at the proverbial nut-sack and nobody wants to make the clean cut to separate them.

 

[Hadoblado]

You emphasise Ne?
We are Ti doms... Ne or no Ne, do you expect us not to split hairs?

But I agree a lot of what goes on is likely motivated by the 'who's right?' equation. So long as you're not purporting that all relentless pursuits here are towards this end then I agree entirely.

Your assertion that subjectivity is of equal value to objectivity is only your subjective interpretation with no evidence in support of the notion. It is thus worthless...

XD

kkk I kid, but the point tentatively stands (just ignore the provocative phrasing).

Subjective experience just is, objective facts require thought to discern. We like thinking (Ti dom), and we like doing so in an externally verifiable manner (otherwise we wouldn't bother phrasing the thoughts). You can't generalise a subjective state without delving into the objective realm, thus they get limited screen time.

 

[nervous-walking]

I have the feeling that it's just the nature of the internet having this effect on INTPs. Confrontation online is very different to confrontation face-to-face. It's much easier, obviously, online. I shy away from confrontation irl for fear of hurting another person's feelings, though on the internet I haven't got all the indicators available that I'm being too full-on. Here we're allowed to run rampant publicly with thoughts because there is nothing directly holding us back... From what I've gathered, sometimes we need other people to hold us back - we have too much faith in our own thoughts and that's not always a good thing.

Of course this is all very subjective and I could be way off. At least that's my understanding of myself! I believe that even though I love my thinking/writing style, just like my face-to-face social skills it's something that I need to work on and develop.. try and be a little more critical of my own bias, be more open to the ideas of others.

...Maybe it's a bit cathartic. We can let go of our reserved nature and really let loose online.

Just a few possibilities, I'm sure there's many more.

 

[The Introvert]

You emphasise Ne?
We are Ti doms... Ne or no Ne, do you expect us not to split hairs?

I guess I don't really understand Ti as I have a very limited connection with it (by comparison, I have loads of experience with Ne and I tell you it doesn't give a shit about the specifics).

But I agree a lot of what goes on is likely motivated by the 'who's right?' equation. So long as you're not purporting that all relentless pursuits here are towards this end then I agree entirely.

Your assertion that subjectivity is of equal value to objectivity is only your subjective interpretation with no evidence in support of the notion. It is thus worthless...

Haha. Well, the same could be said about your statement too. That's the beauty of it. If you want to have one, you have to have the other. If you obtain data, you also have to interpret it to get any meaning from it. So from this reference I think it would be foolish to give any more sway to either one. Of course, that's just my opinion

Subjective experience just is, objective facts require thought to discern. We like thinking (Ti dom), and we like doing so in an externally verifiable manner (otherwise we wouldn't bother phrasing the thoughts). You can't generalise a subjective state without delving into the objective realm, thus they get limited screen time.

Off topic, but how do you think in an externally verifiable manner? It's something I want to do but am poor at, and tis frustrating having ideas and losing them in my head because I don't know a damn thing about external verification.

 

[Hadoblado]

Off topic, but how do you think in an externally verifiable manner? It's something I want to do but am poor at, and tis frustrating having ideas and losing them in my head because I don't know a damn thing about external verification.

I provide my thoughts for your critique, and compare them to both evidence and the ideas of others. So all this arguing over objectivity and shit? The same can't be done for subjective stuff. If we could we probably would, but the chase ends once a statement of subjective experience is expressed.

Every now and then you find some particularly self-righteous fuck who thinks he can argue what YOU are subjectively experiencing. That does not go down well.

 

[Cavallier]

This forum is not necessarily a good source of data on INTPs. For example the number of ENTPS has been rising of late. I think the air of confrontation around here is in no small way due to that.

 

[TimeAsylums]

This forum is not necessarily a good source of data on INTPs. For example the number of ENTPs has been rising of late. I think the air of confrontation around here is in no small way due to that.

wot?

i will debate you right here right now

 

[Cognisant]

Well, yeah, when it comes to nitty gritty logical details all NTs love a good scrap up, INTPs are masters of semantics and technical details, INTJs will slowly crush you with unrelenting logic and ENTPs practice their debate-fu every chance they get.

There's a misunderstanding that objectivity>subjectivity in any situation.

Careful, being a subjectivist will get you mounted on a pyre around here.

You weren't here for the bad old days when not a thread would go by without subjectivists jumping in to tell everyone they're wrong, just because subjectivity is subjective and therefore nobody can know anything, except that Jesus loves them and pot is awesome.

If you want to be a subjectivist take it to the faith & spirituality board, despite the razor wire and semi-submerged concrete buildings I assure you it's not a gassing facility.

Not yet.​

 

[Kuu]

Just because someone posts on INTPforum doesn't make one an INTP. Like Cavallier said, this forum is not exactly the best of places for gathering data. There's a high degree of uncertainty. Many would argue there aren't as many INTPs here as claimed. I wouldn't go deeper down that hole though, it leads to pit of typology-spitting vipers.

The Ti>Ne observation by Hadoblado is also quite relevant. A Ti-heavy INTP that hasn't developed Ne can be annoyingly illogical in its single-minded logical stubbornness.

 

[ummidk]

Well of course not everyone on here is actually INTP, the actual test for mbti is quite poor and it's quite common that people score as they'd like to be. I scored as intp on my first test and found this forum reading into it. I no longer believe I'm INTP, in fact I don't know which type I am.

For the nitpicky, i'm no typology buff, but isn't Ti supposed to be nitpicky? Isn't it supposed to deconstruct an argument down to its logical flaws? Or am I wrong on this?

Careful, being a subjectivist will get you mounted on a pyre around here.

You weren't here for the bad old days when not a thread would go by without subjectivists jumping in to tell everyone they're wrong, just because subjectivity is subjective and therefore nobody can know anything, except that Jesus loves them and pot is awesome.

Not yet.​

....Yea, like almost any thread in the philosophy and faith section would have da blob posting about this.

 

[The Introvert]

I provide my thoughts for your critique, and compare them to both evidence and the ideas of others. So all this arguing over objectivity and shit? The same can't be done for subjective stuff. If we could we probably would, but the chase ends once a statement of subjective experience is expressed.

Every now and then you find some particularly self-righteous fuck who thinks he can argue what YOU are subjectively experiencing. That does not go down well.

Da Blob? I was frequenting here around the time he was banned for good, thank heavens. No, I do not wish to get into debates about subjectivity, other than if it is to emphasize the importance of not forgetting about its utility.

I can think of more than a few members here who would be well-served to stop being distant, objective, psuedo-scientific pissynannies.

This forum is not necessarily a good source of data on INTPs. For example the number of ENTPS has been rising of late. I think the air of confrontation around here is in no small way due to that.

I know at least one ENTP irl (THD) and I've never gotten the feeling like there was something to prove there. I know a few INTPs irl and the same cannot be said.

Careful, being a subjectivist will get you mounted on a pyre around here.

If you want to be a subjectivist take it to the faith & spirituality board, despite the razor wire and semi-submerged concrete buildings I assure you it's not a gassing facility.

Not yet.
​

Literally lol'ed at this XD
​

Just because someone posts on INTPforum doesn't make one an INTP. Like Cavallier said, this forum is not exactly the best of places for gathering data. There's a high degree of uncertainty. Many would argue there aren't as many INTPs here as claimed. I wouldn't go deeper down that hole though, it leads to pit of typology-spitting vipers.

The Ti>Ne observation by Hadoblado is also quite relevant. A Ti-heavy INTP that hasn't developed Ne can be annoyingly illogical in its single-minded logical stubbornness.

I have one particular person in mind

But yes, I understand that not everybody here is INTP. But it's mostly the people that probably are INTP that I'm talking about.

For the nitpicky, i'm no typology buff, but isn't Ti supposed to be nitpicky? Isn't it supposed to deconstruct an argument down to its logical flaws? Or am I wrong on this?

No, you're not wrong. But often nitpicky implies that they are fixing meaningless flaws, and rather than working to solve the problem, it just serves to annoy the Hell out of me.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Do INTPs tend to be stuck up?

The ones who are better than the others, yes.

 

[Hadoblado]

Da Blob? I was frequenting here around the time he was banned for good, thank heavens. No, I do not wish to get into debates about subjectivity, other than if it is to emphasize the importance of not forgetting about its utility.

I was talking more in general. I never experienced Blob acting in such a way, but I only glanced over many of his posts.

I can think of more than a few members here who would be well-served to stop being distant, objective, psuedo-scientific pissynannies.

From my perspective (and I'm not actually thinking of anyone in particular here), people that are both pseudo-scientific AND objective aren't really a thing. If they were being truly objective they wouldn't be adhering to pseudo-science. To me, that speaks more of someone using anything possible to favourably interpret their subjective experience, which is not objective at all.

 

[The Introvert]

From my perspective (and I'm not actually thinking of anyone in particular here), people that are both pseudo-scientific AND objective aren't really a thing. If they were being truly objective they wouldn't be adhering to pseudo-science. To me, that speaks more of someone using anything possible to favourably interpret their subjective experience, which is not objective at all.

Yeah, don't take the actual definition of 'pseudoscience' to heart from that comment.

In fact, it's "pure" science. I just don't like completely objective approaches because they:

- Tend to be dry/ boring
- Don't tend to be too incredibly insightful
- Often fail to put theory to data (which is never a good thing)
- Give off a vibe of "I'm doing this because I have to" which is NOT what science should be about. It should be about thinking and exploring ideas, and being interested, not super-sampling and countless analyses and meaningless numbers without interpretation.

 

[B.C.P.]

The Introvert, have you observed some INTJ's on a forum before?

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah, don't take the actual definition of 'pseudoscience' to heart from that comment.

In fact, it's "pure" science. I just don't like completely objective approaches because they:

- Tend to be dry/ boring
- Don't tend to be too incredibly insightful
- Often fail to put theory to data (which is never a good thing)
- Give off a vibe of "I'm doing this because I have to" which is NOT what science should be about. It should be about thinking and exploring ideas, and being interested, not super-sampling and countless analyses and meaningless numbers without interpretation.

Oh... haha!

A lot of science... is... well.. I find it very boring and mindless. I don't think it's useful to think of this in a negative way however. Empiricism is useful, I'm glad someone else is doing the legwork to give me data to work with.

 

[TimeAsylums]

A Ti-heavy INTP that hasn't developed Ne can be annoyingly illogical in its single-minded logical stubbornness.

I would simply like to clarify this point made. I talked about it somewhat extensively in the witch-hunt thread in the event which shall not be named.

They aren't necessarily being illogical, it's that without the Ne - rather without any sense of new information/other viewpoints coming in, they can be "not open minded" if you will, not exactly close minded, which is why one may sometimes see the INTP following a view already let go, ignored or anything, to its logical end point ("single-minded logical stubbornness). Their Ti demands them to. The point is that, Ti (rather, all judging functions) has to start somewhere. The perceiving functions just...perceive. So if Ti assumes (whether that be incorrectly, or correctly) the beginning, then it will follow it to its logical end point. I summed it up in the witch hunt thread as "they can get a logical answer, but not the right one. So, more irrational rather than illogical.

 

[Hadoblado]

Agreed, though I'd argue that if a person is good at Ti they will also apply it to their initial assumptions in order to overcome availability and self-affirming biases.

 

[Pyropyro]

Me a stuck up? How dare you!

I would 'fight to the death' in debates when my academic performance is on the line and things/ideas that I deeply care about but will give in for small matters (which somehow releases tension).

 

[walfin]

Yes, the arrogant pricks, all of them!

Of course, they can't be blamed for lacking a sense of what's morally repulsive, they're just too feeble for that, the poor lil souls.

 

[rushgirl2112]

I don't think you quite understand why INTPs debate.

I don't debate because I enjoy being right. I don't debate to convince you that I'm right. I debate - and yeah, "nitpicky" stuff too - because I'm interested in exploring different ideas in an attempt to discover truth for myself, to find more effective ways of accomplishing things, and to clarify and refine ideas that have logical holes. Especially my own!

That means that I don't even necessarily think the points I'm debating are "right." They're just the best thing I've come up with so far, and I tremendously appreciate the opportunity to test them out to see if they hold up under scrutiny by others. Or even myself. Sometimes I've started writing a post (on other forums, since I'm new here) and even before I got to the end of writing, I noticed that my logic was flawed and had to go back and start over.

Sometimes I'm just playing devil's advocate to "try on" different perspectives and see if I can find something of value on either side to apply to my own evolving positions. Or purely for mental exercise.

Tenacity in a debate doesn't mean that I think I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just holding out for that moment of clarity in which one party - either one! - hits on something that makes sense. Past beliefs, even yesterday's, aren't relevant. If it doesn't make sense right now, then it's rejected. That's just as true for my own positions as it is for yours.

Of course, because most of my positions (at least the ones I really care about) have been thought through so thoroughly, analyzed, and debated so much, it isn't going to be easy to make an argument I haven't already heard. So it isn't often that someone else's debate point makes a sudden change in how I think about something. Especially because I need to scrutinize it first and make sure it holds up.

So even if I think you're onto something, I'm still going to debate you to test it. In fact, I usually don't bother going that far with people whose positions are irrational or that I've already considered and rejected. If I'm debating you, usually that means I respect you and believe that I can get some value from the conversation, whether by refining my position by incorporating some of yours, or confirming that mine is still solid.

My positions have changed dramatically over time, largely because the old ones have been put to the test in debate and failed. You're not likely to see it happen today, but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to consider it. I'm always willing. You just have to present a more logical, well-crafted position than the one I'm currently holding/testing. Not too many people are analytical and emotionally detached enough to do that, though, which is probably where you're getting the "stuck up" vibe.

 

[doncarlzone]

Why is it that once a (proclaimed) RIGID INTP gets into intellectual battle, they fight to the death of unimportant, insignificant data? I thought you all were Ne; why so nit-picky? Is it inferior Fe feeling inadequate? What gives?

Also, it seems like you get butt-hurt so easily if someone disagrees with what you say. Interesting indeed.

\\RANT

I think you're hitting a soft spot here. I like to proclaim that I'm all about the truth as if I'm some sort of machine of objectivity, which is of course impossible.

I also sometimes find myself nit picking to the point where I won't stop unless my "opponent" walks off like a defeated dog. I purposely try to avoid this if possible, however, it's a part of me which comes out on rare occasions regardless. Sometimes it's positive like verbally executing a douche bag, and sometimes it's negative where I can almost ruin a perfectly nice evening with my INTJ friend.

And the butt-hurt part, that is true too, although I think it's far more apparent for TJs. I think it comes down to the fact that I hate when people make feel stupid, which is ironic since I always make other people feel exactly that.

In other words, we all have emotions.

 

[The Introvert]

The Introvert, have you observed some INTJ's on a forum before?

No, and I don't plan to. I imagine it would be much worse than what I've experiencing now. Don't tempt me into falling into existential despair XD

Oh... haha!

A lot of science... is... well.. I find it very boring and mindless. I don't think it's useful to think of this in a negative way however. Empiricism is useful, I'm glad someone else is doing the legwork to give me data to work with.

Yes, I agree, it's very useful, and yes, I agree, it's very boring. I just don't think we should allow empiricism to appear to be more useful than it actually is.

I too am glad someone else does it (although I'm currently doing it and my frustration with it is borderline insidious) but hopefully in due time I'll be the one interpreting and thinking rather than testing and re-testing.

I don't think you quite understand why INTPs debate.

I don't debate because I enjoy being right. I don't debate to convince you that I'm right. I debate - and yeah, "nitpicky" stuff too - because I'm interested in exploring different ideas in an attempt to discover truth for myself, to find more effective ways of accomplishing things, and to clarify and refine ideas that have logical holes. Especially my own!

Then why does it seem that the debate is almost always close-minded? If your point is to explore other options, then why stubbornly disagree (logical or not) with the other debater? As Kuu pointed out, it's annoying.

That means that I don't even necessarily think the points I'm debating are "right." They're just the best thing I've come up with so far, and I tremendously appreciate the opportunity to test them out to see if they hold up under scrutiny by others. Or even myself. Sometimes I've started writing a post (on other forums, since I'm new here) and even before I got to the end of writing, I noticed that my logic was flawed and had to go back and start over.

Yes, playing devil's advocate. I'm aware. But that's not what I'm talking about here, that's not where my frustration stems. It is with the people that use logic irrationally; the people that, although you cannot find error in their logic (or at least I can't), they're still being stupid and annoying and arguing just to argue, for no reason. If the reason is to understand different viewpoints then I say that a certain viewpoint is only useful until the bounds by which you can argue for it are outside the realm of feasibility or rationality.

Sometimes I'm just playing devil's advocate to "try on" different perspectives and see if I can find something of value on either side to apply to my own evolving positions. Or purely for mental exercise.

Tenacity in a debate doesn't mean that I think I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just holding out for that moment of clarity in which one party - either one! - hits on something that makes sense. Past beliefs, even yesterday's, aren't relevant. If it doesn't make sense right now, then it's rejected. That's just as true for my own positions as it is for yours.

Of course, because most of my positions (at least the ones I really care about) have been thought through so thoroughly, analyzed, and debated so much, it isn't going to be easy to make an argument I haven't already heard. So it isn't often that someone else's debate point makes a sudden change in how I think about something. Especially because I need to scrutinize it first and make sure it holds up.

So even if I think you're onto something, I'm still going to debate you to test it. In fact, I usually don't bother going that far with people whose positions are irrational or that I've already considered and rejected. If I'm debating you, usually that means I respect you and believe that I can get some value from the conversation, whether by refining my position by incorporating some of yours, or confirming that mine is still solid.

Well, at least there's some good news

My positions have changed dramatically over time, largely because the old ones have been put to the test in debate and failed. You're not likely to see it happen today, but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to consider it. I'm always willing. You just have to present a more logical, well-crafted position than the one I'm currently holding/testing. Not too many people are analytical and emotionally detached enough to do that, though, which is probably where you're getting the "stuck up" vibe.

Fair enough.

I think you're hitting a soft spot here. I like to proclaim that I'm all about the truth as if I'm some sort of machine of objectivity, which is of course impossible.

I also sometimes find myself nit picking to the point where I won't stop unless my "opponent" walks off like a defeated dog. I purposely try to avoid this if possible, however, it's a part of me which comes out on rare occasions regardless. Sometimes it's positive like verbally executing a douche bag, and sometimes it's negative where I can almost ruin a perfectly nice evening with my INTJ friend.

And the butt-hurt part, that is true too, although I think it's far more apparent for TJs. I think it comes down to the fact that I hate when people make feel stupid, which is ironic since I always make other people feel exactly that.

In other words, we all have emotions.

Yes.

Perhaps it is just that INTPs tend to be 'detached', almost to the point of when they feel emotions, they're 'primitive' or 'juvenile'.

Maybe that's what this whole thing is about for me. It's not about being stuck up, or being emotionally sensitive despite clearly having no regard for others' emotions.

Perhaps it's that it all just seems so juvenile. That after a point, there is no point, but they won't give up the point no matter how hopeless it really is, even if they know that (read above quotes).

Perhaps I even see a little bit of myself in this conundrum, a part of me that wants to hang onto something despite its being irrational and obsolete. And maybe it's the current changes in myself that want to start everything fresh whenever possible, and maybe that's why I've been so detached myself, lately. Because I've learned that holding onto irrationality is bad, so then constantly changing, being in flux must be good. And it's got me all confused on which way to go and I can't figure out what should stay, what's worth anything and what should go, what's worthless.

So I'm stuck in this system, upon system, upon system of thought. Trying to figure out what I need to do but having no guidance on how to figure that out. So I base my decisions on experience, but I know far too little to make an accurate judgement. So I try to experience more to get better judgement, which in turn causes more frustration, more unease, and more decisions that I have to make, deciding what to keep and what to throw out.

I need someone wise, someone who can help me decide what I should keep and what I should throw out. Because I'm the type of person that can get into something and get trapped before I realize I can't get out, which is never a good thing. I need a mentor.

\\RANT

 

[WRT54GL]

I'm not going to lie, there are moments when I feel like I'm stuck up and feel like I'm better than most people. However, I am sure this is not an INTP only thing and perhaps a great number of people in the world feel this way. But honestly, when I think about it I tell myself that I'm not better than anyone else. That everyone has certain talents, etc. etc. I personally am a very humble person.

Another thing I've noticed about myself is that I get along better with the people seen as "dumb" or "crazy". This has been happening since school when I was placed in advanced classes. For the most part the smart kids were a combination of egotistical, self-centered, jerks, sociopaths etc. You know the kind. I still notice this at my workplace. They are the upper managers. "Intelligent" as they may be (or just smooth talkers), I don't think they've been "enlightened". Sorry, that is a jerkish, stereotypical statement, but like they say....stereotypes exist because they are partly true.

 

[crippli]

Indeed. Very stuck up. I must say I agree with most of what has been pointed out in the thread.

 

[The Introvert]

I'm not going to lie, there are moments when I feel like I'm stuck up and feel like I'm better than most people. However, I am sure this is not an INTP only thing and perhaps a great number of people in the world feel this way. But honestly, when I think about it I tell myself that I'm not better than anyone else. That everyone has certain talents, etc. etc. I personally am a very humble person.

Don't get me wrong, it's good to have confidence in yourself, and in some situations, knowing that you're better (at whatever you're doing) than someone else is valuable.

Another thing I've noticed about myself is that I get along better with the people seen as "dumb" or "crazy". This has been happening since school when I was placed in advanced classes. For the most part the smart kids were a combination of egotistical, self-centered, jerks, sociopaths etc. You know the kind. I still notice this at my workplace. They are the upper managers. "Intelligent" as they may be (or just smooth talkers), I don't think they've been "enlightened". Sorry, that is a jerkish, stereotypical statement, but like they say....stereotypes exist because they are partly true.

I always like to think that it is the "dumb" or "crazy" people that seem to be able to see the world as it truly is (with exceptions either way, obviously). If you seem to relate more to these types of people then I would try to keep my head above water (don't fall into something you won't be able to get out of) while simultaneously learning as much from the "crazy" people as you can. Use their insights to slingshot over the smooth talkers.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I know at least one ENTP irl (THD) and I've never gotten the feeling like there was something to prove there. I know a few INTPs irl and the same cannot be said.

I just laughed out loud like Rosie O'Donnell.

It's always there, just not always shown. (Consider my thoughts on my fellow grad students).

So...

1. Consider the MBTI INTP vs and Socionics INTP and the processes that lead individuals to join this site. Also: the accuracy of the tests.

2. The Forer Effect often leads to superiority complex.

3. Intelligent people like/need a challenge to keep themselves sharp. It's often not the fact, but the principle.

4. Hierarchy tends to form and adapt as a result of conflict. It's self-defeating, in a way.

 

[rushgirl2112]

Then why does it seem that the debate is almost always close-minded? If your point is to explore other options, then why stubbornly disagree (logical or not) with the other debater?

Among the possibilities if an INTP is being closed-minded/illogical:

1. You're not dealing with a true INTP. Trolls, people who have mistyped themselves, etc.
2. The INTP is in fact using logic that isn't readily apparent for one reason or another.*
3. The INTP is having a bad day.
4. The INTP is immature or an asshole.

*This is a point that I think needs more exploration. Not all INTPs are good at communication. Sometimes they may not explain their logical process properly. Sometimes the other person may not recognize the underlying logic. I've noticed that an awful lot of non-INTPs assume that any extended disagreement is a fight and take it personally. This sets up antagonism, and a situation in which all parties can start acting illogically. INTPs are not immune to emotional outbursts and illogical thought processes.

 

[Grayman]

Among the possibilities if an INTP is being closed-minded/illogical:

1. You're not dealing with a true INTP. Trolls, people who have mistyped themselves, etc.
2. The INTP is in fact using logic that isn't readily apparent for one reason or another.*
3. The INTP is having a bad day.
4. The INTP is immature or an asshole.

*This is a point that I think needs more exploration. Not all INTPs are good at communication. Sometimes they may not explain their logical process properly. Sometimes the other person may not recognize the underlying logic. I've noticed that an awful lot of non-INTPs assume that any extended disagreement is a fight and take it personally. This sets up antagonism, and a situation in which all parties can start acting illogically. INTPs are not immune to emotional outbursts and illogical thought processes.

2) is true for me. I also argue to test my position or to better understand their position. I find that I can understand or maybe accept an idea when it is argued from all sides and from everyway I can think of.

I will continue to argue when I feel that I failed to convey the true meaning of what is in my head. It seems impossible to convey the complex web of thought in my mind that I am trying to linearize into a verbal language for them. They will argue a point of that web in my head and think they have debunked my thought process and that I have no where to run and that I am just stubbornly arguing my point to be right. Most of the time I am just trying to get them to understand the whole picture so that they can communicate on the same level. I feel like they are arguing a different thing than I am, and I suppose they usually are. This is particularly a problem when talking to INTJ's. They moment they view one piece of the puzzle not fitting they view my position as illogical and yet they do so not fully understanding what the puzzle looks like when it is put together.

 

[Grayman]

Don't get me wrong, it's good to have confidence in yourself, and in some situations, knowing that you're better (at whatever you're doing) than someone else is valuable.

For me Full confidence is as much as understanding my faults and accepting them as much as it is about realizing my potential. Arrogance is only the second part of that. That is just how I measure my confidence vs my arrogance. I am not arguing the dictionary description, just providing you with my own understanding.

I think lack of confidence, the dictionary version, can result in the inability to accept your faults. This can be seen as arrogance when someone defends themselves to the bitter end because they are not confident enough in themselves and are afraid of being further devalued when they admit fault. Although this can be the same reaction an arrogant person would have, it is not arrogance in my point of view. It is lack of confidence. These people, in my point of view need to be built up in what they do know so that it is easier for them to accept what they don't know and not feel devalued. They need to be able to understand different types of value. I do not judge these people as being inappropriate but as being ignorant of true human value and needing of teaching.


True arrogance is someone who holds themselves in such high regard they believe they are actually incapable of being wrong. I rarely see this type of arrogance. I would think they are acting out of the lack of confidence before I think them truly arrogant.

 

[The Introvert]

I just laughed out loud like Rosie O'Donnell.

Trying to imagine that... it's strangely easy...

It's always there, just not always shown. (Consider my thoughts on my fellow grad students).

But when the thoughts are pretty obvious observations...

1. Consider the MBTI INTP vs and Socionics INTP and the processes that lead individuals to join this site. Also: the accuracy of the tests.

2. The Forer Effect often leads to superiority complex.

3. Intelligent people like/need a challenge to keep themselves sharp. It's often not the fact, but the principle.

4. Hierarchy tends to form and adapt as a result of conflict. It's self-defeating, in a way.

I don't know the difference between socionics and MBTI.

I assumed that most people here actually took the time to understand that accuracy of the test, and generally have personalities similar to that of your stereotypical INTP.

How does Forer lead to superiority complex? That people believe that traits that are "specific" to them (although they are in fact generalizations applicable to many people) are somehow better than other traits? I can see that. That still wouldn't explain why a specific type of person would believe that though; it just implies that it happens, and if that's the case then it should be across the board.

Amen to #4

Among the possibilities if an INTP is being closed-minded/illogical:

1. You're not dealing with a true INTP. Trolls, people who have mistyped themselves, etc.
2. The INTP is in fact using logic that isn't readily apparent for one reason or another.*
3. The INTP is having a bad day.
4. The INTP is immature or an asshole.

*This is a point that I think needs more exploration. Not all INTPs are good at communication. Sometimes they may not explain their logical process properly. Sometimes the other person may not recognize the underlying logic. I've noticed that an awful lot of non-INTPs assume that any extended disagreement is a fight and take it personally. This sets up antagonism, and a situation in which all parties can start acting illogically. INTPs are not immune to emotional outbursts and illogical thought processes.

Fair enough. I would respond more but I'm tired and don't feel like it. I appreciate the thoughtful response though

For me Full confidence is as much as understanding my faults and accepting them as much as it is about realizing my potential. Arrogance is only the second part of that. That is just how I measure my confidence vs my arrogance. I am not arguing the dictionary description, just providing you with my own understanding.

I think lack of confidence, the dictionary version, can result in the inability to accept your faults. This can be seen as arrogance when someone defends themselves to the bitter end because they are not confident enough in themselves and are afraid of being further devalued when they admit fault. Although this can be the same reaction an arrogant person would have, it is not arrogance in my point of view. It is lack of confidence. These people, in my point of view need to be built up in what they do know so that it is easier for them to accept what they don't know and not feel devalued. They need to be able to understand different types of value. I do not judge these people as being inappropriate but as being ignorant of true human value and needing of teaching.


True arrogance is someone who holds themselves in such high regard they believe they are actually incapable of being wrong. I rarely see this type of arrogance. I would think they are acting out of the lack of confidence before I think them truly arrogant.

But we're not talking about confidence, we're talking about INTPs being stuck up! Typical INTP, always talking about yourself!

JK, but honestly, this was more of a rant thread than anything else. I have my own personal ideas of confidence and how it can be applied and misapplied to my life, but I'm not here to preach my way of life to others (unless they ask, of course).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't know the difference between socionics and MBTI.

Socionics INTP = MBTI INTJ.

How does Forer lead to superiority complex?

You know... that "I'm an INTP! I'm just like Einstein!" thing we see every once in a while. (It's more prevalent on other personality sites who shall not be named ).

 

[The Introvert]

What happens to introverts that turn to extroverts after becoming comfortable?

Is that a thing? Is that a true extrovert or is it just comfort?

What accounts for predictable personality changes? (Sometimes to extremes)

Hopefully it doesn't spin out...

 

[Grayman]

But we're not talking about confidence, we're talking about INTPs being stuck up! Typical INTP, always talking about yourself!

JK, but honestly, this was more of a rant thread than anything else. I have my own personal ideas of confidence and how it can be applied and misapplied to my life, but I'm not here to preach my way of life to others (unless they ask, of course).

You noted that you thought they were stuck up because they would fight their view to the death in an argument. I am saying that it is possible you are misinterpreting the source of this action as being stuck up and that the actual cause of this "may" be that they lack confidence and are not able to accept the idea that they are wrong out of fear of being considered unintelligent or inadequate in some way.

Stuck up? Being stuck up is usually from being right too often that you assume that you are always right. INTP's are wrong most of the time. They tend to experiment with different thought processes just to see where it goes, this is why they end up being wrong. When doing this they look stuck up because they may fight the angle from every possible way, relentlessly, until they have fully defined the idea and can make a decision on it. You are probably misinterpreting that this as being that they think their idea is the only right answer when instead it is that they have not yet decided if the idea is completely invalid.

An INTP who thinks the ideas truly are the only correct answer is either discussing something very very important to his value system and is more or less using an undeveloped Fe to argue as opposed to his NeTi functions. OR the person is young and has not developed the Ne or the person is not an INTP.


I am not preaching, I am giving you perspective on my stance. I find it easier for people to understand my position if they understand how I got there.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What happens to introverts that turn to extroverts after becoming comfortable?

Is that a thing? Is that a true extrovert or is it just comfort?

What accounts for predictable personality changes? (Sometimes to extremes)

Hopefully it doesn't spin out...

Social introversion can change, cognitive can't. Social is helped by comfort and familiarity, both are helped by substance, but cognitive can only go so far as to get really, really close to the line that divides them without ever actually crossing over it.

The functions account for predictable changes. A, B, C, D, E (A+B), F (A+C), G (A+D), etc. This is built into the unconscious of the self as well as those you interact with. Even mood disorders like bipolar et al fall into this category, imho.

Set aside time for relaxation and it won't spin out for at least some time.

 

[The Introvert]

Set aside time for relaxation and it won't spin out for at least some time.

That's the thing; my mood for the day seems to be determined randomly when I wake up. I'm either filled with energy early and crash late or vice versa. If the former, then I'm usually talkative, loud, and full of ideas (not necessarily good ones, mind you. Just ideas).

On the other hand, if I wake up tired, I usually just chill out until later in the evening when I seem to regain some energy and focus on linear, "hardcore" thought processes. If I have something to think about, then I do nice work. If not, then I usually end up doing nothing productive at all (aimless linear thought tends to do that).

 

[doncarlzone]

That's the thing; my mood for the day seems to be determined randomly when I wake up. I'm either filled with energy early and crash late or vice versa. If the former, then I'm usually talkative, loud, and full of ideas (not necessarily good ones, mind you. Just ideas).

On the other hand, if I wake up tired, I usually just chill out until later in the evening when I seem to regain some energy and focus on linear, "hardcore" thought processes. If I have something to think about, then I do nice work. If not, then I usually end up doing nothing productive at all (aimless linear thought tends to do that).

This is strong with me as well. Not long ago a girl told me that she was unsure about inviting me to a social gathering as she never knew which one of me would show up. Needless to say, I told her to fuck off in a very sensitive and diplomatic manner.

I am speculating that it might have something to do with dopamine over-stimulation? The symptoms seem to suggest that. It's strange how my mood can change completely, however, I would not want to be energetic and ambitious all the time anyway if I had the choice.