INTP's and mindless intellectualism

[Philosophyking87]

"Mental masturbation is the greatest INTP pastime."

How true is this?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Very

 

[a detached retina]

I would say this is largely true for most intuitors.

 

[Jah]

Just as with masturbation in general, it's fine, just don't do it too much in public.

 

[Words]

This is innate value, similar to survival is innate value. Objective Function. Meaning of Life.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

"Mental masturbation is the greatest INTP pastime."

How true is this?

Second greatest.

There's mental intercourse which is much more engaging.

 

[a detached retina]

Second greatest.

There's mental intercourse which is much more engaging.

I thought that was more of an ENTP thing.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I thought that was more of an ENTP thing.

I guess you've never seen two INTPs go at it.

 

[Stoic Beverage]

Hell, a good chunk of this forum is dedicated solely to it.

 

[pjoa09]

Yeah, it's about time we Mind Fucked somebody.

Reference to P' Diddy in Get Him to Greek.
It's not a really good movie but catchy.

 

[Words]

I thought that was more of an ENTP thing.

You have a point.


Maybe I'm ENTP. Checks*. Nope. Maybe ESC is right. If mental intercourse is for INTP's, then what is for ENTP's? Ideational intercourse?

 

[xbox]

Yes I agree, and INTP vs. INTP is just mentally stimulating. Brings out the thought processes.

Have you ever argued with an ENTJ?? Its so easy for an INTP to win at one of those. And I say "win" because in the perspective of an ENTJ, it only matters if they are right...

INTP vs. ENTJ usually ends in a nuclear explosion. After the dust settles, the INTP is seen chilling and seeminly unphased, and the ENTJ is slamming things, pissed, and heard shouting hours after the encounter, cursing off the INTP who clearly doesn't give a damn.

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[BigApplePi]

"Mental masturbation is the greatest INTP pastime."

How true is this?

One INTP, yes. If two INTPs have social intercourse, it wasn't masturbation if it bears fruit. One may need a 3rd INTP to examine the fruit.

Sometimes a thread will bear resemblance to circle jerks which can draw unwanted attention from ENTJs as previously mentioned.

 

[Da Blob]

There are those with little or no intellectual ability who attempt to engage in intellectualism only because of the alternative. If one does not Think, then by default one must Feel! There are a lot of Us who are afraid of Feeling. We have been betrayed once too often by false information offered to Us via Feeling.

 

[BigApplePi]

There are those with little or no intellectual ability who attempt to engage in intellectualism only because of the alternative. If one does not Think, then by default one must Feel! There are a lot of Us who are afraid of Feeling. We have been betrayed once too often by false information offered to Us via Feeling.

Sounds true. Thinking can be a light way of dancing around feeling. (Does feeling hold the opposite? Strong feelings are a way of by-passing not-so-handy thinking.)

Thinking, I presume, should lead to conclusions which lead to some form of action. When one hits a wall, especially if one only feels (not sees clearly) the wall is there, one turns back. Thinking when in circles may be a way to deal with feeling. So to escape the circles, we need something new: a different feeling ... a different (therapeutic) experience or random external event which brings that about ... and helps.

 

[Claytoe]

Second greatest.

There's mental intercourse which is much more engaging.

QFT

 

[Dimensional Transition]

I hate how much too often I find an interesting thread, only to see everything I would've said has already been spoken. ):

 

[EyeSeeCold]

INTP vs. ENTJ usually ends in a nuclear explosion. After the dust settles, the INTP is seen chilling and seeminly unphased, and the ENTJ is slamming things, pissed, and heard shouting hours after the encounter, cursing off the INTP who clearly doesn't give a damn.

Sorry for going off topic.

lol

I've been in arguments(or more appropriately, discussion) with two. It didn't explode, it was more just counter-pointing each other with ease.

One INTP, yes. If two INTPs have social intercourse, it wasn't masturbation if it bears fruit. One may need a 3rd INTP to examine the fruit.

Sometimes a thread will bear resemblance to circle jerks which can draw unwanted attention from ENTJs as previously mentioned.

Not to mention the voyeuristic INTPs who love to watch.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Speaking from experience or alluding to concrete realities often seems a waste of effort, which in turn often tends to heighten the impression that the forums are essentially a den of academic inequity.

 

[Beat Mango]

It should read as this:

"Mental masturbation is the greatest INTP pastime... manual masturbation is the pastime of everyone else."

 

[Lobstrich]

"Mental masturbation is the greatest INTP pastime."

How true is this?

I couldn't tell you how true it is. I'm feeling that there's a large (as large as can be, with the amount of users) group of pseudo-intellectuals on this forum though, so I guess it's true. For this forum.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm feeling that there's a large (as large as can be, with the amount of users) group of pseudo-intellectuals on this forum though, so I guess it's true. For this forum.

Does a pseudo-intellectual rank higher on the scale of intellectuals because they are very special specialists in a special kind of intellectualism?

 

[Lobstrich]

Does a pseudo-intellectual rank higher on the scale of intellectuals because they are very special specialists in a special kind of intellectualism?

I'd say they rank lower than non-intellectuals =o

 

[Solitaire U.]

'Pseudo' = false

 

[Lobstrich]

'Pseudo' = false

Uhh, yes.

Are you going to tell me that "Rain = water" now? =)

 

[BigApplePi]

I'm not sure what "pseudo-intellectualism is anyway. What would be an example of it? ... unless I'm in the middle surrounded by it, lol. Seems to me if INTPs indulge themselves in this, it can't hurt. It might be preparation for better things.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Uhh, yes.

Are you going to tell me that "Rain = water" now? =)

Was meant for the guy above you...

 

[Words]

Seems to me if INTPs indulge themselves in this, it can't hurt. It might be preparation for better things.

This is my idea too. The greatest values in my opinion are values that are closer to nature. They're less conflictive and less complicated. Less subjective even. Less imaginary.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I agree, INTPs are nothing but mindless intellectuals.

 

[Lobstrich]

Was meant for the guy above you...

My bad, I should probably have seen that. But I suggest using quotes, I think they were 'invented' for this very reason. To make sure who you're adressing =)

 

[Lobstrich]

Seems to me if INTPs indulge themselves in this, it can't hurt. It might be preparation for better things.

I don't think pseudo-intellectualism is a good thing. Be it for preparation or any other reason.

I don't think any good comes from quoting the back of a book and then claiming it to be your own opinion. (well it can be your opinion just fine. But claiming it as something original, which you said) We can all quote books. Any person can read a book and repeat it.
Nothing good comes from such an action. It stops both people in the debate from reaching any kind of synthesis. Because there's nothing 'alive' about your statements because your view on the matter cannot be changed, since you do not know anything on the matter, you're just repeating a book.

I really can't see what positive things people could drawn from pseudo-intellectualism. Or 'pseudo-anything' for that matter.

 

[Melllvar]

I'm not sure what "pseudo-intellectualism is anyway. What would be an example of it? ... unless I'm in the middle surrounded by it, lol. Seems to me if INTPs indulge themselves in this, it can't hurt. It might be preparation for better things.

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=8436

 

[Solitaire U.]

My bad, I should probably have seen that. But I suggest using quotes, I think there were 'invented' for this very reason. To make sure who you're adressing =)

Agreed.

And...

I don't think pseudo-intellectualism is a good thing. Be it for preparation or any other reason.

I don't think any good comes from quoted the back of a book and then claiming it to be your own opinion (well it can be your opinion just fine. But claiming it as something original, which you said) We can all quote books. Any person can read a book and repeat it.
Nothing good comes from such an action. It stops both people in the debate from reaching any kind of synthesis. Because there's nothing 'alive' about your statements because your view on the matter cannot be changed, since you do not know anything on the matter, you're just repeating a book.

I really can't see what positive things people could drawn from pseudo-intellectualism. Or 'pseudo-anything' for that matter.

Agreed!

 

[Lobstrich]

Agreed.
And...
Agreed!

Just give me a moment to take this in. I'm not used to people actually agreeing with me, and certaintly not with exclamation marks!

 

[^_\\]

I don't think mental masturbation, as it were, is the same as intellectualism. Isn't mental masturbation thinking too hard about simple things and intellectualism saying things like like "thusly", and looking down on people who don't read a lot?

 

[Da Blob]

Sounds true. Thinking can be a light way of dancing around feeling. (Does feeling hold the opposite? Strong feelings are a way of by-passing not-so-handy thinking.)

Thinking, I presume, should lead to conclusions which lead to some form of action. When one hits a wall, especially if one only feels (not sees clearly) the wall is there, one turns back. Thinking when in circles may be a way to deal with feeling. So to escape the circles, we need something new: a different feeling ... a different (therapeutic) experience or random external event which brings that about ... and helps.

Yes Thinking and feeling can work as a team, instead of opposing forces. There are threats that must be responded to immediately via emotional responses, there is no time to think. However, there are those who do not chose to think, even when time allows.

Hmmm! I have never thought of the T-F scale as monopolizing Action... Does it?

See RUTS

Thinking can be very nonproductive, especially, when it becomes habitual, circular "Logic" it creates ruts that are difficult to escape from. One does need the "NEW" , the Different, the Unique to provide us with the stimulus/momentum to escape from ruts. One of the first steps of productive therapy is to get the client involved in initiating "Brand New" actions, actions that have nothing to do with the problems they seek counseling for.

Once, they relearn to motivate and thereby adapt via action to a New stimuli. Then one can lead them to relearn to adapt the other mental components of adaptation (core beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, decision making process, heuristics etc).

After which, (this retraining of the adaption process) the real problems of their lives can be addressed and often resolved...

 

[Lobstrich]

I don't think mental masturbation, as it were, is the same as intellectualism. Isn't mental masturbation thinking too hard about simple things and intellectualism saying things like like "thusly", and looking down on people who don't read a lot?

It has nothing to do with reading alot. I don't really read alot myself. Besides, if you think that intellectualism is decided on the amount one reads, then I think you need to reavulate your understanding of the word.

I consider intellectualism to be a genuine interest in X topic. An open mind which is ready for input that contradicts with your own ideas and opinions about X topic. And not just a droned speech that you have rehearsed ten times just so you can spout it around and sound all smart.
A thing that adds 'points' on pseudo-intellectualism is when people use unecessary words. Use 'advanced' and 'smart' words when one could just as easy say "I think it's about this because of that" (Weird example, I know. Couldn't really come up with anything)

EDIT: I also do not think that you have to be 'smart' to be an intellectual. You don't even have to be able to recognize the name Einstein, and you can still be an intellectual. I'd be quite amused, surprised even shocked. If you didn't know his name. But I wouldn't go "That dude is soooo not an intellectual" There can be millions of reasons one does not know the name. Judging wether or not one is an intellectual or not depending on the books they read, the music they listen to, the philosophers they know (if they even give a shit about philosophers) and the names they know.. Is pseudo-intellectual in my opinion. It's pretentions behaviour at it's best(worst)

But that last thing is just me though. It's my personal opinion on attitudes. It's not exactly objective.

 

[BigApplePi]

Well mindless intellectualism? It might be called, "rumination" or going over and over the same thoughts in a circle without getting out ... like stuck in a mental rut. For example I might have some good thoughts about something, but if I don't put them to the next step, tell them to someone, and only do the same thing without refinement or perspective, that could be called "mindless." One has to go to the next step.

 

[Lobstrich]

One has to go to the next step.

That's exactly what I'm saying. And just quoting a book doesn't take the next step. It's standing still.

 

[Iuanes]

Its not really a pastime if I can't help it, or its my most common mode of being. At night, you go to sleep, the gears are still going, its automatic. Sure, I use it a lot and enjoy it a lot so then it's a past time. But I mean, this sort of 'intellectualism' is more just a fact of our constellation of cognitive tendencies.

I think 'pseudo-intellectualism', is intellectualism that's affected. It's more of social thing, even if you don't talk to anybody. Like if you dress like a professor and go to cafes and read a book you KNOW nobody has heard of, because you want to fill that role. You can even actually be 'intelligent' but to me this is still pseudo-intellectualism, the intellect as a fashion or a pose.

I would consider not so bright people who are a still genuinely mentally inquisitive, and have that as their main trait, as being intellectuals.

 

[xbox]

I think 'pseudo-intellectualism', is intellectualism that's affected. It's more of social thing, even if you don't talk to anybody. Like if you dress like a professor and go to cafes and read a book you KNOW nobody has heard of, because you want to fill that role. You can even actually be 'intelligent' but to me this is still pseudo-intellectualism, the intellect as a fashion or a pose.

usually seen at starbucks, or the airport.

 

[Iuanes]

Why the airport? I've actually seen this too. Who goes to the airport to read a book?

 

[a detached retina]

I wonder if there are people wandering around the library looking for their terminals to catch their flights?

 

[Iuanes]

Now boarding; fiction A to H

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Now have we finally all realized that on this forum everybody is a psuedo-intellectual? :P
Or maybe not at all, I mean... These 'hipster' people are often seen as psuedo-intellectual... I don't think they talk about the same stuff as on this forum.

 

[Lobstrich]

Now have we finally all realized that on this forum everybody is a psuedo-intellectual? :P
Or maybe not at all, I mean... These 'hipster' people are often seen as psuedo-intellectual... I don't think they talk about the same stuff as on this forum.

I don't think everybody on this forum is a pseudo-intellectual. And not the other way around either.

 

[Lobstrich]

Like if you dress like a professor and go to cafes and read a book you KNOW nobody has heard of, because you want to fill that role.

That's the extreme pseudo-intellectual. And the kind of ridiculous one as well.

I would consider not so bright people who are a still genuinely mentally inquisitive, and have that as their main trait, as being intellectuals.

I agree on this. But what about the bright people? Can't the be inquisitive? Or are you denied the title "Intellectual" the minute that you've learned something and become 'bright'

 

[Iuanes]

That's the extreme pseudo-intellectual. And the kind of ridiculous one as well.

I used the extreme for clarity. Certainly not the only kid of pseudo-intellectualism.

I agree on this. But what about the bright people? Can't the be inquisitive? Or are you denied the title "Intellectual" the minute that you've learned something and become 'bright'

No, I'm just saying not so bright people can still be intellectuals, not that bright people can't. For me its the attitude and sincerity, not 'quality' of intellect that matters.

 

[Melllvar]

So if I'm not good enough to qualify as a real intellectual, should I quit trying to learn new stuff (i.e. quit trying) so I won't be a mere pseudo-intellectual?

 

[Lobstrich]

For me its the attitude and sincerity, not 'quality' of intellect that matters.

Exactly how I think of it as well!