INTP

[Philosophyking87]

Here's something I wrote a while back. What do you guys think of it?

We INTP's are the rugged maverick philosophers on the edge of oblivion: accepting nothing; bearing an allegiance to no one, with a steadfast loyalty to only Truth and Reason. We are the pioneering explorers of uncharted thought - always seeking to discover more. Our motto: "What's out there? What's true?"

 

[Czech Yes or No]

Definitely agree with the motto, but you romanticize INTP's a bit too much with your description.

 

[Ostriker]

Definitely agree with the motto, but you romanticize INTP's a bit too much with your description.

And he's not the only one to do that around here, that's for sure.

 

[Minuend]

No individual can be summed up in three sentences. It might be poetic, but there is a lot more to "them" than that. I think INTPs generally are more human than would be assumed from that paragraph.

 

[Auburn]

I agree. Way too romanticized.
Though if I had to sum it up in that way, I'd do it like this:

​

We INTP are the natural epistemologists; accepting as truth only that which passes what is to others a very rigid criteria (one which is always evolving as we better caliberate our principles/apparatus for deduction) but which is to us the only real option to take to know reality, and one which our minds flows in.

We are the logical methodists, more obsessed with the process of reasoning than what we are reasoning about, or even truth. Yet truth is the byproduct of our crystalline methodology, as it can be relied upon to deduce correctly from the data it is presented.

 

[Melkor]

Here's a better one that I can read while retaining my stomach contents:

We INTP's are the bearded hippies on the edge of our chairs: accepting nothing; bearing an allegiance to anyone that'll listen to our rambles, with a steadfast loyalty to only insomnia and amorality. We are the pioneering explorers of the indoors - always seeking to shirk more! Our motto: "Ask me later! Actually forget it, I don't care!"

I personally think yours could be attributed to the vast majority of intelligent people and only a certain portion of INTPs.

 

[Auburn]

I personally think yours could be attributed to the vast majority of intelligent people and only a certain portions of INTPs.

Yep.

What it means to be TiNe, is having a dispassionate data discriminating/filtering/contrasting process as the dominant obsession of your psyche, and a way of data collection that is abstract proactive cross-contextualization. Nothing more.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Definitely agree with the motto, but you romanticize INTP's a bit too much with your description.

Please elaborate.

And he's not the only one to do that around here, that's for sure.

Also elaborate.

No individual can be summed up in three sentences.

Of course you don't entirely sum up people with in a few sentences. But the point isn't to sum individuals up at all -- only to capture the general gist of INTPs (not each and every INTP).

Thus, if you read what I wrote expecting to relate to it in every exact sense, you don't understand why it was written. Furthermore, because it's more "poetic," it's also the case that some people might not have truly understood what was meant by any of the words. So there's clearly a potential problem of interpretation.

It might be poetic, but there is a lot more to "them" than that.

At no point does what I wrote imply that there "isn't" more to an INTP than what is written. Again, it's merely a "gist."

I think INTPs generally are more human than would be assumed from that paragraph.

Give a few examples. Largely, INTPs seem to be obsessed with thinking all day, living largely within their own heads, curiously desiring to understand everything around them. In what ways are we "more human"?

I agree. Way too romanticized.

Also elaborate.

Though if I had to sum it up in that way, I'd do it like this:

We INTP are the natural epistemologists; accepting as truth only that which passes what is to others a very rigid criteria (one which is always evolving as we better caliberate our principles/apparatus for deduction) but which is to us the only real option to take to know reality, and one which our minds flows in.

We are the logical methodists, more obsessed with the process of reasoning than what we are reasoning about, or even truth. Yet truth is the byproduct of our crystalline methodology, as it can be relied upon to deduce correctly from the data it is presented.

This seems to ignore INTP mental independence, inclination towards unconventional thought, and obsessive curiosity.

We INTP's are the bearded hippies on the edge of our chairs: accepting nothing; bearing an allegiance to anyone that'll listen to our rambles, with a steadfast loyalty to only insomnia and amorality. We are the pioneering explorers of the indoors - always seeking to shirk more! Our motto: "Ask me later! Actually forget it, I don't care!"

INTPs clearly have weaknesses, as all types do; but my interest is not in summing up INTPs in a way which takes into account the good and bad equally. I instead wanted to try to capture the main "drives" and "peculiarities" which result from Ti and Ne.

By "edge of oblivion," I was trying to get across the notion that we tend to work with lesser known areas of study and living, as many INTPs often have a basic desire to contribute to society by offering "clarity" to some previously not well understood area of the world. This is clearly contrasted with most other types, who usually work with tangible, known things. We love to question and get bored with areas of life that are already understood. We like new issues to question and explain -- new problems to solve.

By "accepting nothing," I really meant, "Virtually anything which can be furthered doubted and questioned." Though we clearly tend to accept certain principles or theories as truth, so long as they continue to hold up. So "accepting nothing" is clearly hyperbolic (i.e., exaggeration).

By "an allegiance to no one," I am referring to the INTP tendency to have an extreme sense of mental independence, such that we are reluctant to easily make commitments that we might perceive to hamper our sense of personal freedom. Moreover, there's something of "impartiality" implied here as well. With Introverted Thinking, we're usually inclined to maintain a high level of objectivity (bipartisanship), such that we tend to want to look at relevant reasons and facts, rather than show partisan favor for any group over another.

Here's a quote from the MBTI section of the forums on Ti:

Dispassion: Ti types are usually level-headed, objective, impersonal, yet intensely involved in problem solving.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6582

By "truth and reason," I clearly meant that we seek truth above all else, with only a true dedication, in a sense, to the use and acceptance of reason (i.e., rationality). This obsession with logic and the almost compulsive desire to seek out truth leads to an almost complete disregard for (at least in theoretical intent) the more subjective aspects of any matter which often drive others towards more partisan positions. Thus, we often look at reasons/facts of relevance/substance in any issue, eschewing what does not seem relevant. For instance, someone may vote for a politician on the basis of looks, while an INTP will only look at the politician's claims, to see if they hold up well to scrutiny, as in a sense, there is a sort of "truth regarding the worthiness of the politician based on his/her claims." We seek this out, without caring much for unnecessary, irrelevant information about the politician.

And the point here isn't that we are all some completely perfect and impartial thinkers who never make mistakes. We do. The point is that we tend to have an "inclination" towards objectivity, even if we do not always succeed in being perfectly impartial in all situations.

"Explorers of uncharted thought" gets the same point across as "edge of oblivion."

If anyone sees further problems, given my explanations, I'd love to hear them. In what sense does this seem to be somewhat "off" for INTPs? Any examples to the contrary?

I personally think yours could be attributed to the vast majority of intelligent people and only a certain portion of INTPs.

1. I don't think so. Certainly is seems, at a quick glance, that most NTs can be summed up here. But if you think about it, ENTJs and INTJs are drive by Extraverted Thinking to find "external consensus." In other words, they want a collective methodology upon which they can feel assured that there is some "grounding" when speaking of any matter. Science is essentially the result of Te. Thus, NTJs often want "acceptable empirical grounds" prior to any actual theorizing, such that any arguments should be "sound." In this sense then, NTJs aren't entirely inclined on the whole to deal with philosophical conjecture, rational speculation, and "uncharted thought." They are much more comfortable with what is "known."

NTPs, on the other hand, tend to be described commonly as being much more okay with less facts, as we tend to use Ti to create models, merely to search for validity/consistency. Validity is clearly whether or not one's reasoning process follows, whereas soundness is validity with the addition of actual truthful premises. Thus, NTPs clearly seem much more concerned with "the reasoning process" itself, in comparison to NTJs, who seem more concerned with the "results" of the reasoning process. Thus, I say that NTPs are much more "on the edge of oblivion" in this sense, than NTJs.


2. You may have a point about some of the information seeming a bit too general for most NTs. For instance, "accepting nothing" could apply to INTJs, as well, as INTJs are often considered the most independent of all the types. Thus, they may show a great amount of impartiality as well. "Allegiance to no one" clearly might apply to most NTs, too (though extraverts might be more tempted to care for social relationships for certain benefits). "Truth and reason" clearly applies to all NTs, for the most part.

Yet, overall, it seems even if a few of these phrases tend to fit all NTs generally, it's still the case that some of it does not. INTJs do not seem to have a complete compulsion for truth in the purse sense as INTPs (though they of course value the use of reason as highly). INTJs clearly prefer results to what may or may not actually be the case in the long run. Sitting around speculating about things we cannot know seems to them a waste of time, whereas INTPs may believe that thinking about such possibilities is necessary to attempting to further come closer to a proper understanding of things. Thus, for INTJs I would clearly write "placing a great premium on what is empirical."

By saying that INTPs are obsessed with "logic," therefore, I am clearly indicating that INTPs are much more interested in validity/correct reasoning for the sake of correct reasoning, whereas INTJs are more concerned with using logic to understand the world empirically. Moreover, when I say "maverick philosophers," I clearly indicate that INTPs are much more concerned with principles, rhetorical logic, the dialectic process, and pure abstractions, whereas INTJs/ENTJs seem much more concerned with empirical considerations. ENTJs/ENTPs also seem to be much more at home with the use of rhetorical logic as it applies to practical living (i.e., lawyering). In this sense, INTPs are clearly much more "ivory tower" than the other NTs, generally.

So yes, on the surface, I think it does seem a bit general. But if what was meant poetically is truly taken into consideration, the implied traits do seem a bit more INTP-specific than would otherwise seem to be the case. But feel free to add more input.

 

[Da Blob]

I agree. Way too romanticized.
Though if I had to sum it up in that way, I'd do it like this:

​

We INTP are the natural epistemologists; accepting as truth only that which passes what is to others a very rigid criteria (one which is always evolving as we better caliberate our principles/apparatus for deduction) but which is to us the only real option to take to know reality, and one which our minds flows in.

We are the logical methodists, more obsessed with the process of reasoning than what we are reasoning about, or even truth. Yet truth is the byproduct of our crystalline methodology, as it can be relied upon to deduce correctly from the data it is presented.

INTPians are the only ones that even know what the word, epistemology means -naturally.

INTPians focus on the Agents of Changes, the methodology, more than the outcome of change. We respond to change differently. We also measure profit differently and invest our time in risks, seen as too risky or not involving risk at all in the eyes of Others, to earn that profit, that quality Others do not see as profit.

 

[ElvenVeil]

too much word fluff...

Obsession with logic is something that fits many INTPs and so that seems fair to say.. But other than what, I agree, the text is something that could be applied to many types.. Curiosity is something that is just about always comes along with intelligence, and the text basically focuses on the word 'curiosity'.

This I find wrong though: NTPs, on the other hand, tend to be described commonly as being much more okay with less facts, as we tend to use Ti to create models, merely to search for validity/consistency. Validity is clearly whether or not one's reasoning process follows, whereas soundness is validity with the addition of actual truthful premises. Thus, NTPs clearly seem much more concerned with "the reasoning process" itself, in comparison to NTJs, who seem more concerned with the "results" of the reasoning process. Thus, I say that NTPs are much more "on the edge of oblivion" in this sense, than NTJs.

As this looks as the various kind of NT's, this seems a bit wierd.. As stated above, obsession with logic seems to be a thing that most INTPs share, and imo, this is connected to thinking introverted... If you want to follow the beautiful logical patterns to reach some sort of 'truth', data is a necessity. Without enough data, we simply can not know which of the many possible outcomes that is the correct one. The INTP needs data to deconstruct a topic, so that the INTP sits back with an understanding of all the tiny fragments, that are the result of deconstruction, in order to consider to validity/truth of the whole. As a result the more data, the better deconstruction can be made.

Ni however, seems to work as an interconnected system, where new data and knowledge is constantly connected with everything else that is known to the Ni person (my view on how it works). Logical nitpicking is not what Ni focuses on, but it takes in data and connects the data to the big pool of knowledge. In every NTJ that I have seen, Ni simply fills out the gaps(missing data) and sticks with that until contradicting data (or clarifying data) shows. In my opinion, Deductive vs Inductive reasoning gives a fine simplified version of a difference between how INTP and INTJs work, as oposed to basically ascribe science to NTJs .

result: I think the way you describe NTPs in the quoted section is much closer to how NTJs work.

 

[Philosophyking87]

But other than what, I agree, the text is something that could be applied to many types..

because...

 

[ElvenVeil]

because...

Just follow the rest of the parahraph and it should be evident Intelligence is not something that is 'INTP only' but intelligent people can be found in every type.. If your text mainly talks about curiosity, and curiosity is strongly related to intelligence we get a conclusion that says 'your text can be applied to many types'

 

[Moocow]

ro·mance1    [n., adj. roh-mans, roh-mans; v. roh-mans] Show IPA noun, verb, ro·manced, ro·manc·ing, adjective
noun
1. a novel or other prose narrative depicting heroic or marvelous deeds, pageantry, romantic exploits, etc., usually in a historical or imaginary setting.
2. the colorful world, life, or conditions depicted in such tales.
3. a medieval narrative, originally one in verse and in some Romance dialect, treating of heroic, fantastic, or supernatural events, often in the form of allegory.
4. a baseless, made-up story, usually full of exaggeration or fanciful invention.
5. a romantic spirit, sentiment, emotion, or desire.

From dictionary.com.

 

[Moocow]

The truth is that most of us are just hedonistic vegetables much of the time.

 

[Philosophyking87]

The truth is that most of us are just hedonistic vegetables much of the time.

Be that as it may, is it not also true that we are inclined towards the particular habits I mentioned, due to Ti and Ne?

 

[Moocow]

Be that as it may, is it not also true that we are inclined towards the particular habits I mentioned, due to Ti and Ne?

What does it matter? I think you have only succeeded in describing your own personal ideal. I would honestly feel ashamed to parade the title of rugged maverick philosopher... this characterization does nothing for me. It is a caricature, and it may suit your purposes to believe in it, but to some of us it is clearly a caricature.

I don't entirely disagree with the meaning but I find the way it is worded unbearably vainglorious and hyperbolic.

 

[pernoctator]

too much word fluff...

Fluff usually means meaningless excess. I think this is the opposite, too much meaning crammed into few words. As a result it's not exactly everyday speech but, with the exception of "on the edge of oblivion", it's fairly non-figurative and to the point.

I don't entirely disagree with the meaning but I find the way it is worded unbearably vainglorious and hyperbolic.

It's better if you imagine Christopher Lee reading it aloud.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I don't entirely disagree with the meaning but I find the way it is worded unbearably vainglorious and hyperbolic.

I acknowledged that it's hyperbolic for effect, to get the gist of the type across in strong fashion. I guess people are taking it a bit too literally. Hmm...

 

[Philosophyking87]

Fluff usually means meaningless excess. I think this is the opposite, too much meaning crammed into few words. As a result it's not exactly everyday speech but, with the exception of "on the edge of oblivion", it's fairly non-figurative and to the point.

Agreed. It's "compressed language."
Therefore, it's not easy to really get where I was going with it.
A lot of it is extremely hyperbolic (for effect). I have a tendency towards hyperbole.

It's better if you imagine Christopher Lee reading it aloud.

hahahaha

 

[snafupants]

No individual can be summed up in three sentences. It might be poetic, but there is a lot more to "them" than that. I think INTPs generally are more human than would be assumed from that paragraph.

Was there ever the expressed intent to summarize in one sentence?

 

[BigApplePi]

Note that in a population of ten million, at one percent, that would yield one hundred thousand INTP's. Are those 100,000 all alike? Pick yer INTP.

 

[Vidi]

first line is incredibly self - praising; some self doubt would be more beneficial.

That is, if you do not make an advertisement for some multi-billion profit company (charity included) with an image to promote..

 

[Vidi]

visual picture I get : something like a scene from les miserables with a flying flag and heroic chorus of INTP's

 

[BigApplePi]

We INTP's are the rugged maverick philosophers on the edge of oblivion: accepting nothing; bearing an allegiance to no one, with a steadfast loyalty to only Truth and Reason. We are the pioneering explorers of uncharted thought - always seeking to discover more. Our motto: "What's out there? What's true?"

Suppose "We INTP's" is changed to "Some INTP's." Would that be better? Else the thread reminds me of INTP Fe shortcomings. Or "special feelings" might be better than "shortcomings." These would seem to be F comments over T comments for which I have no comment.

 

[Da Blob]

Note that in a population of ten million, at one percent, that would yield one hundred thousand INTP's. Are those 100,000 all alike? Pick yer INTP.

outlier |ˈoutˌlīər|
noun
a person or thing situated away or detached from the main body or system
• a person or thing excluded from a group; an outsider.
• Geology a younger rock formation isolated among older rocks.
• Statistics a data point on a graph or in a set of results that is very much bigger or smaller than the next nearest data point.

maverick |ˈmav(ə)rik|
noun
1 an unorthodox or independent-minded person

Hmm! I seemed to be an outlier in a sample composed of outliers. I wonder if that is a statistically valid premise? That is to say how much in common can INTPians have? Are we more different than similar or more similar than different? Can we, INTPians, legitimately answer that question?

 

[BigApplePi]

Hmm! I seemed to be an outlier in a sample composed of outliers. I wonder if that is a statistically valid premise? That is to say how much in common can INTPians have? Are we more different than similar or more similar than different? Can we, INTPians, legitimately answer that question?

Go to the NE corner of the field. Now toss up some Ti/Ne seeds in the air. They will scatter. Proceed by going to the SE corner. Toss up the same number of Fe/Si seeds. How will they blow in the wind? Follow along to the SW corner. Take the measure of Ni/Te seeds into the air. Finish with Se/Fi seeds. Go to another three fields and stop. If the fields are small will there be a strange overlap?

BTW welcome back Da Blob. Linger awhile. If there are any subjective objections, let there be a discussion. If there are any objective subjections, there will be a concern.