INTPs and Psychology

[Galthian]

Hey guys, I've been considering, with great interest, a career in psychology. I'm actually posting this from my introductory psychology class at my local university.

What interests me is learning exactly how human minds' work, how their function developed, and how their function helps them interact with the outside world. I've always had a knack for intuitively understanding people, I am quick classify people in my mind. Such as how they make decisions (Logic or Emotion).

So, how do you guys feel about psychology?
How do you think INTPs function in the field? (I really feel like I treat everyone as a test subject in the back of my mind)
Have you noticed a knack for intuitively understanding people? ( I don't even quite know how I do it, but I usually turn out to be right)

Thank you!

 

[SpaceYeti]

I can't say I intuitively understand people, no. Like other INTPs, though, I tend to mirror how they act. I think it gives me insight into how they think, but that's not really intuition. I avoid people who seem to try to sell BS more than actually discuss something or be honest, and I've gotten a good eye for it, over time. But sometimes I slip back into my naive state where I assume everyone is honest in that they believe what they're saying even if I know it's false.

 

[Galthian]

...I know what you mean with that, I don't think that is being naive though... It sickens me how often people lie to themselves. It's just a defense mechanism, but a lot of people can't seem to overcome it.
Before this becomes a discussion on how ignorant/stupid the majority of people are, I'll stop.

What do you mean, "mirror how they act" though?

 

[SpaceYeti]

When someone is serious, I'm serious with them. When someone's joking about being gay, I joke about being gay with them. When someone's sad... well, I don't get sad with them. That actually freezes me because I can't empathize, apparently. But generally, when someone acts a certain way, I also act that way when with them. I mirror them, because I don't want to influence the mood, I think.

 

[Galthian]

I do the same thing, man.
But, it's just for the funsies.

I get pretty damn awkward when someone is sad. My mind either tells me to stay quite, or I have to fight off the urge to chastise them for their silly emotions. I understand the emotion, I just don't understand how they can't get over it logically.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I mirror them, because I don't want to influence the mood, I think.

The chameleon effect is a result of subconscious objectivity and because your emotional expressions are vulnerable to the influence of others, since that area is underdeveloped. Basically polarized Ti-Fe, ISTPs have it too.

 

[Galthian]

The chameleon effect is a result of subconscious objectivity and because your emotional expressions are vulnerable to the influence of others, since that area is underdeveloped. Basically polarized Ti-Fe, ISTPs have it too.

Sounds like a useful evolutionary trait. One that actually support introverts.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I do the same thing, man.
But, it's just for the funsies.

I get pretty damn awkward when someone is sad. My mind either tells me to stay quite, or I have to fight off the urge to chastise them for their silly emotions. I understand the emotion, I just don't understand how they can't get over it logically.

Frankly, I don't get significantly sad around others. It's too personal. They'd just try to comfort me, and they simply can't. They're my emotions to deal with. So when someone has a similar extreme emotional outburst, I wonder why they're doing it in front of people. I prefer to be alone for them, what do they want? Why don't they leave, and what do I do to make them more comfortable? I mean, no matter what I do, they're still going to be sad. If they're like me. But, then, that's the problem. They're not.

 

[SilentChaos]

So, how do you guys feel about psychology?
How do you think INTPs function in the field? (I really feel like I treat everyone as a test subject in the back of my mind)
Have you noticed a knack for intuitively understanding people? ( I don't even quite know how I do it, but I usually turn out to be right)

Thank you!

I love psychology! I don’t think there are many jobs in it that I would consider worthwhile.

“To become a spectator of your life is to free yourself from the suffering of life”

Be careful with treating people as test subjects, don’t detach yourself so far that people become nothing more to you than actors in a play or so far that you forget that you are also in that play, you would become quite immoral (Like me haha).

I also dunno about having an intuitive understanding people, my theories about a person seem to be made out of logical observation; everything I find out can be backed up with logic.

When someone is serious, I'm serious with them. When someone's joking about being gay, I joke about being gay with them. When someone's sad... well, I don't get sad with them. That actually freezes me because I can't empathize, apparently. But generally, when someone acts a certain way, I also act that way when with them. I mirror them, because I don't want to influence the mood, I think.

I would defiantly say I try to copy people’s emotional state, unless it’s too emotional in which case I try to escape the situation.
I’ve noticed myself doing something else as well, I wait for someone to make judgements about me (most people do this quickly) and then I act totally depending on what they think I’m going to do. So with most people I’m nothing more than a mirror of the judgements they made.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's pretty extreme.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Psychology as a practicing career might be interesting, though I think armchair psychology is pretty self-indulgent. Don't we already have enough information to diagnose/treat most disorders?

 

[Galthian]

Psychology as a practicing career might be interesting, though I think armchair psychology is pretty self-indulgent. Don't we already have enough information to diagnose/treat most disorders?

I'd be more into the helping individuals out, perhaps latter moving on to a neuroscience sub field. We know surprisingly little about our brains.

 

[Jennywocky]

I would have probably gone into a psychology or therapeutic field if I had been better adjusted when I hit that stage of my life. unfortunately, I was dealing with a lot of baggage when I was entering school, and it made it even harder to figure out what I wanted to do and then believe I could do it.

I find people fascinating, although probably more from a behavioral POV. (It's also one of my easier in's in order to connect with people and build some personal relationship.) INTP doesn't like to make assumptions or rely on conventional structures; we actually want to understand why something is the way it is, and if we're good, we're locked into actual observation/data when we start looking for patterns rather than weaving more from within like INTJs.

Due to the complexity and ambiguity of psychology, it's very easy to see a lot of people with "theories" about things, and it's easy to find lots of crap; but a lot of INTP strengths are the same ones that cut through much of the BS and gets back to basics. Also, we operate with some flex, conceptually; and this is more how people work naturally (they have a list of "rules" that govern their own behavior, whether conscious or unconscious); I think another problem with psychology is that people want to be more specific, whereas the rules are actually more general. If you start making things too specific, then the rules no longer fit people, and they start feeling like you're shoving them into ill-fitting boxes.

Anyway, from a therapeutic angle, I always found a lot of people coming to me to ask advice about life situations, because I seemed to quickly grasp the patterns in their story, could reasonably fill in backstory that they could then confirm (based on patterns I knew), and then fill in the rest of the picture in order to give them some guidance on how to approach things. This is how I think INTP typically fills the role of counselor -- big-picture, framing, conceptual insight, strategic reassessments (vs an ENFP "life coach" role, etc.); we also don't want to be part of their solution, we want them to do the work to fix their own issue and be autonomous, and INTPs can typically examine some pretty dark stuff without being personally overwhelmed by it due to our nature.

If INTPs can step into an Se and/or Te perspective with some ease, then research pursuits become easier since a lot of research involves empirical number crunching / test creation / statistics.

As far as theory fields, I tend to be into CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) and Object Relations - the latter of which is studying personality as how individuals orient themselves in life to other individuals, especially primary caretakers when young, and how this impacts development. It contains a lot of truth, to me, and also is a complex developmental system where all the parts impact other parts, almost like studying astronomy but with people instead of planets, suns, comets, and the like.

 

[Galthian]

I find people fascinating, although probably more from a behavioral POV. (It's also one of my easier in's in order to connect with people and build some personal relationship.) INTP doesn't like to make assumptions or rely on conventional structures; we actually want to understand why something is the way it is, and if we're good, we're locked into actual observation/data when we start looking for patterns rather than weaving more from within like INTJs.

I don't mean to say that I automatically assume something, I first must observe their behavior in particular situation, but once I get a general feel, it really seems like humans all have general archetypes.

Due to the complexity and ambiguity of psychology, it's very easy to see a lot of people with "theories" about things, and it's easy to find lots of crap; but a lot of INTP strengths are the same ones that cut through much of the BS and gets back to basics. Also, we operate with some flex, conceptually; and this is more how people work naturally (they have a list of "rules" that govern their own behavior, whether conscious or unconscious); I think another problem with psychology is that people want to be more specific, whereas the rules are actually more general. If you start making things too specific, then the rules no longer fit people, and they start feeling like you're shoving them into ill-fitting boxes.

This is one thing that worries me about the field. I've been hearing lots of negative, "Why don't you just go into one of those useless fields like Psychology?". I don't understand why some people have such a negative view point on it, other than the abundance of HOOPLAH theories, which should be expected, and overcome, in any scientific field.

Anyway, from a therapeutic angle, I always found a lot of people coming to me to ask advice about life situations, because I seemed to quickly grasp the patterns in their story, could reasonably fill in backstory that they could then confirm (based on patterns I knew), and then fill in the rest of the picture in order to give them some guidance on how to approach things. This is how I think INTP typically fills the role of counselor -- big-picture, framing, conceptual insight, strategic reassessments (vs an ENFP "life coach" role, etc.); we also don't want to be part of their solution, we want them to do the work to fix their own issue and be autonomous, and INTPs can typically examine some pretty dark stuff without being personally overwhelmed by it due to our nature.

I get this all the time. My friends come to me for advice constantly, and as long as they do not involve me in their problems, I am happy to offer my aide. I really enjoy looking at "drama" from every involved person's POV. From there, I can usually come up with a plausible solution, or at least nudge them towards a solution.

CBT is one of the fields I was definitely looking at, that's some interesting stuff!

 

[Jennywocky]

I don't mean to say that I automatically assume something, I first must observe their behavior in particular situation, but once I get a general feel, it really seems like humans all have general archetypes.

Totally. There are some general behavioral patterns and motivations for those patterns that can be overlaid in order to get a grasp of the situation; the key is in getting enough experience with variances in the patterns that you either recognize when the pattern doesn't fit, or that something is part of the same pattern even if it looks a little different, etc.

It's the same thing general practitioners in medicine do, when they're doing a routine diagnosis and determining what tests to give, right? You're just psychologically diagnosing someone instead of physical diagnosing, and you ask more specific exploratory questions to hone in on the probable issue.

This is one thing that worries me about the field. I've been hearing lots of negative, "Why don't you just go into one of those useless fields like Psychology?". I don't understand why some people have such a negative view point on it, other than the abundance of HOOPLAH theories, which should be expected, and overcome, in any scientific field.

Yeah. I get sick of that crap too. I also hear it about profilers, probably partly in response to the number of TV shows out popularizing the field.

There are lots of sucky profilers out there, but the few good ones know what they're doing. And it's the same approach: They have a decent idea of theory and it's synced up with actual hands-on experience with real-life cases -- patterns in the field. You also have to include the proper amount of variance (i.e., weight) with every assertion you make. Again, INTPs are good at weighing truth statements and assigning probability to a given statement... depending on their understanding of the field and their actual experience level.

I get this all the time. My friends come to me for advice constantly, and as long as they do not involve me in their problems, I am happy to offer my aide. I really enjoy looking at "drama" from every involved person's POV. From there, I can usually come up with a plausible solution, or at least nudge them towards a solution.

Yeah. I mean, I try not to just "give a solution" but sometimes we can just come out with some very "common sense" rationalities.

One of my favorite movies ever is "The Edge," where three men are stranded in Alaska and one is eaten by a grizzly, which then stalks the other two. They barely have any resources, no real weapons, and they're lost... and this bear is mercilessly hunting them down.

I love the intuitive rationality of the protagonist which really just comes across as "common sense." Most people would flee the bear until they ran out of resources and strength, whereupon they would succumb... hoping beyond hope that some random chance event would save them.

The guy (played by Anthony Hopkins) is a rationalist. He sees the answer in his head. If they flee, they'll wear themselves out and die. And while the bear is chasing them, they can't rest nor forage for food. The rational answer is that they have to kill the bear... which seems crazy to any other person, but it's the right answer.

(A similar situation appears in "A Wizard of Earthsea"... Ged is being chased by a shadow being that he thinks will kill him, yet is charged with protecting his village from nearby dragons. To get out of the situation, he does the most seemingly crazy and impossible thing but also the most rational, and really his only choice: Rather than cowering and waiting to die, he sets off to kill the dragons, so then he will be free to deal with the shadow.)

Likewise: I think we're really good at looking at people's situations, past their conventions and expectations and fears, and bringing them back to reality and rationality -- "Well, you might feel scared or it seems impossible; but <this> is the only real way out at this point." Once they see it, it's up to them to choose or reject it, though.

CBT is one of the fields I was definitely looking at, that's some interesting stuff!

Yeah. And I am not just the president but also a client!

 

[Da Blob]

I have a bachelor's degree in psychology, with an emphasis on cognitive development. I had to take 5 courses in research Methodology and there was not a single course available at the undergraduate level about therapeutic relationships - so the idea of helping people was ignored in favor of becoming research scientists by my university.
I looked at getting my PhD, but it was even worse - it was all about statistics and clinical methodology involving clients and patients with severe mental illnesses. I did not want to spend my life with idiots and crazy people. The idiots being those that think that only drugs can help those with mental disorders and the crazy ones that no longer listen to human beings as having something to offer.

I did get a Master's degree in Human relations, though. It seemed to be a bit more practical as far as actually counseling and helping 'ordinary' people, who were basically normal, but had one or two attitudes or addictions, that were keeping them from fulfilling their potential as human beings. Positive Psychology is really quite a rare thing in the academic world. The focus seems to be on the very disturbed individuals rather than those that simply wish to improve themselves a bit, via examination and adaptation processes of thought patterns, habits etc.

I really feel that ignoring Human Relations while promoting research methods pretty much make psychology useless as a helping profession...

 

[dark]

The chameleon effect is a result of subconscious objectivity and because your emotional expressions are vulnerable to the influence of others, since that area is underdeveloped. Basically polarized Ti-Fe, ISTPs have it too.

Interesting, a chameleon effect? So is that why I feel I am different around each person I interact with? Odd, interesting, will be taking another psychology class this next semester, along with some science stuff, at one time I wanted to get a psychology degree, but ended up rationalizing myself out of it since I didn't want to deal with people and emotions, but mostly because everyone around me became afraid I would start using them as test subjects, true, so now I'm doing what everyone has told me is a useless pursuit, philosophy... seriously I don't care about money, it wont make me feel better about myself, making people think does, and being called weird.

 

[Dormouse]

I'm very interested in psychology, and am hoping to take a complimentary course in it sometime soon. I find myself generally more drawn to neuroscience, seeing psychology as a more practical and people-oriented branch of it. Understanding people would be nice. Though I think curiosity as to how people work has a bit more to do with power and control than most would admit.

Anyways, I think the main INTP advantage in the field would be the ability to remain detached and objective when evaluating patients. I suppose issues would come up in gaining trust and forging connections with people, though.

I don't intuitively understand people, but I can pick up on moods and atmospheres pretty well.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting, a chameleon effect? So is that why I feel I am different around each person I interact with? Odd, interesting

Probably. I mean you could say it's just being impressionable, but then again my personality is composed of multiple facets and a wide range of interests. I choose to display behavior that I think is appropriate.

 

[KazeCraven]

If you're going to study psychology as a starting point for a career, be careful about the type of psychology you focus on. If you're interested in psychology as science, cognitive psychology is good. If you're interested in therapy or treatment, you'll be wanting to focus on clinical psychology and possibly medicine.

Also, if you're interested in individual differences, psychology as science doesn't have a whole lot of well supported information. In my classes, rarely do we discuss individual differences.

 

[Galthian]

I'm very interested in psychology, and am hoping to take a complimentary course in it sometime soon. I find myself generally more drawn to neuroscience, seeing psychology as a more practical and people-oriented branch of it. Understanding people would be nice. Though I think curiosity as to how people work has a bit more to do with power and control than most would admit.

Anyways, I think the main INTP advantage in the field would be the ability to remain detached and objective when evaluating patients. I suppose issues would come up in gaining trust and forging connections with people, though.

I don't intuitively understand people, but I can pick up on moods and atmospheres pretty well.

Ah yes, power over people, I hate to admit it, but I do crave it... in some forms. I'm going for a masters in Psychology and a minors in Business for now... Understanding people + being able to sell shit should = Win for me.
Plus sating some of my natural curiosity for figuring out how everything works.

Maybe it's just me, I don't know. I don't personally "use" emotion per se, but I comprehend other's emotions and why they experience them...

 

[Glordag]

I would defiantly say I try to copy people’s emotional state, unless it’s too emotional in which case I try to escape the situation.
I’ve noticed myself doing something else as well, I wait for someone to make judgements about me (most people do this quickly) and then I act totally depending on what they think I’m going to do. So with most people I’m nothing more than a mirror of the judgements they made.

I do this, as well! I think I mainly do it in order to become as distant from the person as possible, to better observe the situation from the outside. If I am nothing but what they expect, then I don't have to worry about perceptions - that is already taken care of. It's possible that it's also a way to better understand others. If you become a source of their observations and judgments, then you can understand how their mind works to some degree.

Back to the main topic; I'm very much interested in psychology, but only as a hobby. Were I to have a career in the field, I think that I would feel "tied down" by it, and begin to grow discontent for the field. I think that INTPs do best in a field where they can continually develop new ideas or try new things. That's not to say that psychology does not allow for this, it's just to say that I can see myself falling into a "rut" of sorts in the field. It may very well be different for you.

Please be careful and put a lot of thought into choosing your field of study. I did not, and went straight into a field that I knew I had talent for but didn't stop to think if I really enjoyed. These days I think I would have and should have chosen differently. That said, every person is different. As you may be able to discern from my signature picture, I love nature, music, and art. As such, fields like genetics, music, literature, and art history appeal to me. Every person is different, even amongst INTPs. Good luck!

 

[CoryJames]

I definitely feel as though psychology is a subject of much interest to INTPs, largely due to its base pattern and theory, which allow for broad, speculative thinking, as opposed to the closeted necessity to redundantly crunch data. I also believe it appeals to us because we are naturally good at it, some of us, like myself, having an almost purely objective standpoint emotionally speaking, and as someone cited above, having the ability to delve into some pretty dark stuff without feeling the need to empathize, (at least not sincerely), and having the need to coddle the patient or subject get in the way of finding the truth.

In response to what others have said about emotional mirroring and the chameleon effect, and also about actively validating the judgements passed by others, I have the following experiences to offer contrast. I do often find myself subconsciously monitoring the emotional atmosphere in the room, but I do not always mimic it. A lot of the time, I find myself searching for ways to use my knowledge of the other's emotional levels and tendencies to manipulate them how I choose. I do not mean this in a villainous sense, to clarify, at least not always. I have used this ability to exploit and also exact what I felt was necessary appropriation, both righteous and selfish.
The same general idea goes for my filling of others judgements. Although sometimes I find it best, easiest or most rewarding to fill a judgement, it is just as often useful to be able to use that judgement, which allows one to understand future expectations, to surprise others, and break expectations.

 

[DrSketchpad]

Hey guys, I've been considering, with great interest, a career in psychology. I'm actually posting this from my introductory psychology class at my local university.

What interests me is learning exactly how human minds' work, how their function developed, and how their function helps them interact with the outside world. I've always had a knack for intuitively understanding people, I am quick classify people in my mind. Such as how they make decisions (Logic or Emotion).

So, how do you guys feel about psychology?
How do you think INTPs function in the field? (I really feel like I treat everyone as a test subject in the back of my mind)
Have you noticed a knack for intuitively understanding people? ( I don't even quite know how I do it, but I usually turn out to be right)

Thank you!

wow, I have the same interest for the same exact reason, that's primarily why I started researching personality types. Glad to see someone else taking an interest.

 

[Absurdity]

I toy with the idea of pursuing a career in psychology, even though my current college major is not very relevant.

For some reason I have also always been interested in psychoanalysis, even though there is very little science to it. Perhaps the hilarity of telling people they have an Oedipal complex is what I find so appealing.

My friend's dad is a psychiatrist and the two of us are very similar. It's obvious, though, that dealing with screwed up people all day for 20 or so years has left him very jaded.

 

[Moocow]

I just finished getting my bachelors in general Psychology. There's a lot of really cool stuff to learn involving neuroscience and cognitive science, that is, theory and research into the structures of cognition. Even the research statistics classes can be interesting as far as learning just how we use data and what it means when that data is used.

A lot of it was complete bollocks though. Particularly developmental and aging psychology. Complete bollocks.

 

[TriflinThomas]

When someone is serious, I'm serious with them. When someone's joking about being gay, I joke about being gay with them. When someone's sad... well, I don't get sad with them. That actually freezes me because I can't empathize, apparently. But generally, when someone acts a certain way, I also act that way when with them. I mirror them, because I don't want to influence the mood, I think.

I used to do this a lot (with the exception of the sadness also) but now I usually do it in big groups so I don't get tired as quickly.

 

[Suraj]

Psychology is hands-down my favorite subject. I'm shooting for an Economics degree mainly for practicality's sake, but I may well throw Psych into the mix as a second major. Both fields focus on how and why people make decisions, questions that I find extremely fascinating.

 

[Manic]

I just finished getting my bachelors in general Psychology. There's a lot of really cool stuff to learn involving neuroscience and cognitive science, that is, theory and research into the structures of cognition. Even the research statistics classes can be interesting as far as learning just how we use data and what it means when that data is used.

A lot of it was complete bollocks though. Particularly developmental and aging psychology. Complete bollocks.

Agree, bollocks, most of it. I'm taking a History of Psychology class right now and have taken others in the past. Some of the pioneers of modern psychology were brilliant and serious about their work, and they tried valiantly to turn it into a hard science, but to this day they're not there, the neuroscience notwithstanding. Freud, for instance, was brilliant, and his work changed the course of not only psychology but modern culture, and he is said to have based much of it on Darwinian thought, but almost all of his theories have been discredited. That said, human behavior is endlessly fascinating and if anything needs to be studied with scientific rigor, this is it. Moreover, as a clinical psychologist you can make a difference in people's lives.

Maybe there's a Freudian thread somewhere, but as an aside, I underwent psychoanalysis for a few months a while back. It was an interesting experience to say the least. I even arrived at a few insights that were helpful, but I don't think that had anything to do with psychoanalytical theory, and I suspect I would have arrived at the same place through conventional psychotherapy. The one thing that Freud might have gotten right is that whole Eros and Thanatos thing.

 

[nanook]

i don't know what sort of developmental psychology they teach at universities.
i am curious which part of that is bollocks in your mind.
i would not be suspired if their versions of development are so dumbed down that they deserve that judgement.

traditionally, all the good stuff in psychology was about understanding how the self works, as a natural organism. and most of that happens to be about development, because the psychic organism is developing all the time, unless it's stuck through pathology. and much of modern psychology focuses on the superficial behavioral shit, adaption to society, because it needs to justify itself as objective/fail-save science. it may be fail-save as such, but looses all meaning and purpose and at times it becomes fascism. trying to condition people into functionality as good citizens, like you train dog. and quickly classifying everyone as personality distorted, based on going through a check-list of symptoms/appearances, without requiring the diagnostician to have any understanding of how the pathology has developed functionally, which would be a required understanding to know that a "pathology" is actually a dysfunction of the psychic organism. so that is fascism (sponsored by insurance companies). which is why I was never eager to study psychology.

 

[Moocow]

I'm a little bitter because the class I took on it was absolute bollocks too and didn't make the field any easier. It could have been fascinating, but my professor expected absolutes where in reality all we have is a thin spread of data and a lot of debate and conjecture. Developmental psychology is comprised of countless studies of correlations with aging and the methods used impact the data so dramatically as to result in contrary extremes. Some studies show that intelligence improves with age, some show it declines.

"Data rich and theory poor." No one can connect all of that crap together because the studies are too ambitious for the methods and so, too often invalid.

The development we learned in undergrad psych was mostly Erikson's stages, Piaget's stages, Freud's stages, Santa claus' stages, and every other stage theory anyone happened to scribble on a napkin after a long night of drinking and ruminating.

The whole idea of a stage theory makes me sick at this point. The mind over an expanse of time is something quite different from the mind as a static system.

@nanook If you hate it, that is all the more reason to study it. The DSM-IV/V is easy to see as a rather fascist book when special interests slip in handfuls of new prescription criteria with every edition. Much of psychology is divorced from the way it has been used though, and there is a lot of potential for beneficial implementation.

 

[Moocow]

Also it took me a while to reconcile Humanistic psychology with scientific psychology. If you studied history of psych you know what I'm talking about... Abraham Maslow, self-actualization, transcendence, free will, and so on. In short, you have scientific psychologists trying to figure out reality: the mechanics of the mind, mental maps, neuroscience, consciousness, and evolutionary functioning.
But at the same time you have a whole different field that calls itself psychology, writing what amounts to strategy guides for living. Just personal, speculative ideas about human needs that seem to serve the same purpose as religion in glossing over any of the philosophical depth of the topic to forge a conventional wisdom for the common folk. For some reason, these two separate purposes share the title of "Psychology" and are taught as one.

What is more bizarre is that this humanistic psychology tends to pay little attention to scientific psychology. At least not intentionally. You'd think, the best strategy guide one could write would acknowledge all the tricks revealed by understanding the code.