Introversion

[hairlessbluetick]

I'm interested in what people think the most concise definition of introversion. I've always thought of it as an "energy" thing -- ie, whether you are energized by company or by being alone, probably because that's the way it was put in the first book I read on MBTI, but its seems like an oversimplification. I know that it affects the way the functions work, what order they are in, and whether you introvert or extrovert the functions. I'm interested though in the way it manifests itself in people's lives, ie., do you feel more "shy?" (I know that shyness is seperate from introversion or extroversion, I'm just curious what people's experiences have been.) How do you feel about meeting new people? I know that personally, even though I'm very introverted, I really enjoy meeting new people, but I think it has more to do with my love of novelty than with any need for company.

I think there's a lot of overlap between behaviors that are "signs" (or even "symptoms", lol) of introversion, and the actual definition of introversion. I know that you can be introverted and show many signs of being extroverted, and vice versa. Is there an established yes or no for this?

If that was rambling and confusing please tell me so I can explain better. Sometimes my posts can be very jumbled. (Like my thoughts :-p)

-Jessica, just trying to break the ice .

 

[Ragnar]

Hmm, introverts are within, rather than feeding off the stimulii of company and exterior circumstance; but I rarely feel shy so much. Or not so much as I used to, when knocking on a door was painful or ringing up strangers --- simply because it was intruding into their world. Although talking to passing strangers was quite easy. I too enjoy meeting others on a one-to-one basis, but have great difficulty in communication, finding it more natural when you both have reached a state where you instinctively commune through companionship.

 

[lightspeed]

1. do you feel more "shy?"
2. How do you feel about meeting new people?
3. I know that you can be introverted and show many signs of being extroverted, and vice versa. Is there an established yes or no for this?

1. I am very shy in some situations like: meeting new people, or group activities.
2. I feel uncomfortable meeting extraverts, because I am weary of being expected to speak before I think, and having too many personal questions I don't want to answer.

 

[tanqttnml]

@ Hairlessbluetick

By introversion, I think that it means the emotion, the sense that you are better by yourself. For me, being introverted is that I like to keep a lot to myself and that there is something that keeps me from communicating with other people.

Shyness, I think, is only a small part of the Introversion. Shyness is not really about meeting people, but rather that it takes more energy from a person to start talking, to break the ice in real life. I too myself enjoy a lot meeting new people, but I'm rather on the side...Like, I usually don't get into all the talking. It takes more time for me to get myself involved in a conversation.

Sure thing, nothing has a limit, and there's no definite limit between two caracteristics, like you said for Introversion and Extroversion. But somewhere, there's still a fine line between both. No one can be 50% of each. Everyone will either go more on a side or the other, even if it's just 0.001%.

Hmm, introverts are within, rather than feeding off the stimulii of company and exterior circumstance; but I rarely feel shy so much. Or not so much as I used to, when knocking on a door was painful or ringing up strangers --- simply because it was intruding into their world. Although talking to passing strangers was quite easy. I too enjoy meeting others on a one-to-one basis, but have great difficulty in communication, finding it more natural when you both have reached a state where you instinctively commune through companionship.

Same for me ^^".


*Sorry if some of my sentences are kind of confusing, I'm not very good at expressing in English...yet. O___o*

 

[loveofreason]

For me introversion means 'turned within', as others have also expressed. My life is lived on the inside, protected from external events.

I happened also to be an extremely shy child, but have learnt I can be somewhat more aggressive in pursuit of information, and the world doesn't end !! It may feel that way on the inside, but the day dawns when you realize no-one else can see inside; indeed, no one cares. Which is a tragedy and also a ticket to move like a ghost through the masses.

 

[lightspeed]

My life is lived on the inside, protected from external events.

Very good way of describing it. Dead on.

 

[Gaupa]

I don't see myself as being "shy", but I am aware that I need to observe people before I through myself into any discussion or so. When I was a teenager I was truly "shy", but that was partly due to the fact that I was convinced that nobody was interested in my existence.

I like meeting new people - as long as they don't require me to act and interact immediately (as someone said about extraverts).

I have trained myself in being talkative, sharing my thoughts (and sometimes even my feelings) etc. I'm not generally viewed as being shy. But I have a clear need for solitude, "load my batteries" on long walks in the forest etc and can be completely drained if I have to be active around a lot of people for any length of time.
Once on a convention I worked for two whole days - talking to and contacting people who walked by etc. And after that weekend it took 3 whole days before I could get the energy to do anything at all! Totally washed out. Typical introvert. Have a friend who is the opposite, a typical extrovert getting energy from interacting with people: on the way home from a viking market weekend she suggested that we continue with an evening on the town...?

 

[Wisp]

*Wisp uses Phoenix Down on topic* *Topic Revives*
I usually get the impression that most I types will have a strong tendency to be shy as children/teenagers. I know I was, and still am, a little. I have no problem with public speaking, though. You see, my barrier was broken rather suddenly when I joined a singing group to further my musical mastery. Having to sing, I found, was no different than public speaking sans music. Insert the INTP characteristic advanced metacognition and the barrier vanished. I'm still rather... timid about approaching people in anything but the internet. I've prob'ly spoken more in this post than I speak in the average day to my non friends/family. But, I agree with the energy comment, and would like to extrapolate, that, the I/E switch is also determined by enjoyment, not in relation to each other, but to other people. I's enjoy isolation, not because they draw mental energy from it, but because they just enjoy it more than E's. Reverse holds true. Comments?

 

[Ermine]

I really don't think that introversion means shyness, but just energy from within. Though I don't talk much, I wouldn't consider myself shy. I'm not afraid of speaking out, merely an amateur at communication and being a conversationalist. In my opinion, introversion is about where inner energy comes from and shyness is a mild deficiency in communication combined with fear.

 

[arunashrivastav]

i feel being an introvert is more about being selective in expressing our feelings.....because despite of being an introvert i take active participation in any kind of discussion but the major problem lies in expressing my feelings to people when situations are adverse,and mostly difficulty in expressing deepest emotions in the family itself.

wondering we might not get misinterpreted we usually fail to express wht is inside us....hence resulting in giving a false impression of ourselves......

 

[Taylor]

It's unfair, the bad rep introverts get!

Just because I don't exactly enjoy getting together with family members I don't really know, being forced to stand awkwardly in a crowd of annoying huggy people who have pre-set faux pas that make no sense (and that I'm nearly expected to make) or "friends" who want to "chat" on the phone about "oh, nothing in particular" (and you can bet that by the time I find a subject I can be fluent in, they'll switch it back to what *blank* did with *blank*).

Er, not that I'm necessarily averse to gossip, just when it feels like I'm playing counselor (<--correction: cheerleader) to somebody who wants me to tell them they're smarter, cooler, or just better in general than their petty "enemy" at the time.

Social circles are a very mysterious world for me, especially the circles of my parents...I'm expected to keep out and stay quiet, to "watch and learn", but all the while follow the rules that professionals play by? No, thanks. It makes me feel like Puerto Rico.

It takes a lot of repetition to get it through people's heads that introverts put the 'I' in 'individuality', you know?

 

[Zeke Johnson]

Extroverts have an extrinsic value system, whereas Intros have an inner value system.

Exo's essentailly look outwards all the time, with little value on their inner worlds, whereas Ino's look inwards all the time and have little regard for external values.

A common thing you will hear as an I-type is that your not living in the 'Real World', and that inner worlds, dreams, fantasies, ideals, are seen as non-sense. The truth is, that everything external comes from the internal. Although both paths are equally valid.

I don't see the problem in discerning the difference though as it's rooted in perception?

Zeke Johnson ( Ex-Captain )

 

[Wisp]

Mmmmm... half of what you define as "I" seems too much like an "N" trait.

"dreams, fantasies, ideals, are seen as non-sense"

This is a classic S/N conflict.

 

[Linsejko]

When I have mentioned that I am an introvert, when mentioning this test to friends, several of them were shocked. They completely did not see me as an introvert.

I also found myself becoming hyper, when younger, when in large groups. I annoyed myself a great deal, and would spend much time berating myself later. Now I am more prone to sit and wait for someone to say hi to me at a large party, thinking to myself, hoping that the kind of person that will be interested in saying hi to me will be worth talking to, assuming the rest probably aren't.

I don't usually enjoy talking to EF's, especially EF girls. Still, I know two different such girls who each consider me their singular closest guy friend.

I just talk and smile very easily. I'm good at getting other people to talk- much of my talking is actually listening, occasionally probing enough to get something worth hearing out of my speaker, then listening again. I've more than once had someone say after hanging out with me a few times, 'I just realized I know almost nothing about you, and I've told you my life story.'

It takes a while for people to realize how much I keep under the surface- rather, to realize I keep myself under the surface. They *very* rarely have any idea how much is under the surface.

Also, Wisp, I think I agree with you- I define the "I" in INTP as primarily where you get pleasure from, even if official material says otherwise. The questions seem to lean that way to me. I just enjoy reading a lot, and don't find that there is a lot of fun to be had at a large social event. I also like to go on long walks. I find that communication is awkward or/and inefficient in large groups in conveying meaningful information, so I prefer to chill with friends one on one, or in very small groups.

As far as preference, I find "E" to mean overbearing on the test, just a high need for social everything, which I perceive as absolutely worthless. Thus, we usually don't get along swell.

These are generalizations, and they very much do not apply as broadly as I appear to assert a belief that they do.

--

In the end, I just find most people aren't worth sharing my thoughts with- they either won't get it, or won't care. On the very rare occasion I do find someone, I am anxious to speak deeply & in great quantities; granted, I still keep so many things to myself.

I just don't have that compulsive desire to push myself onto other people that so many E's do.

.L

 

[Olba]

I cannot say that I feel shy around new people, but rather that I treat them with a cold indifference. What this means is my reactions seem sloppy and minimal, but I do it on purpose as to minimize the chance of it actually forming a permanent or semi-permanent social connection.

Since I would rather only speak things that make sense to me, I should be rather quiet while in a group. However, most of the time I distract people from this notion by being overly talkative. This allows for me to blend in with less of a hassle, but the side-effect is a wrong impression to most people, along with me being memorable for talkativeness.

To me, the most important social connections are all about profit. I talk to people because I want to test them, to laugh at their weak points, to mock their stupidity. Or I talk to people because I want to see if I missed some crucial angle to approaching a certain problem. But I don't talk to people because I'm lonely. If I did, I would be contradictory, as I spend a great majority of my free time on my PC in my room in this house.

School, to me, is nothing but a lazy way of acquiring data. In school, the general principles of things are talked during classes, which allows for me to be in deep though through courses while acquiring new information in a way that doesn't require effort from me, other than withstanding the social side of school.

If I meet a group of total strangers, such as relatives of a friend, I'm usually extremely introverted. What this means is I don't start talking and I answer questions with very few words without going into the details. In the optimal case, I also have a cup of coffee or tea by this point, which works as a cover to my quiet nature.

But if anything, I usually start a social relation with spilling some key information about me and my past. The things are usually things anyone else would probably keep to themselves, which makes me seem sociable and trusting. However, it's not trust. It's a test to see how the individual reacts to it and how it affects the way they treat me. Now, since I start by making myself seem trust-worthy, people usually grab that quality and indeed end up trusting me. This, in turn, results in a situation where I have all that I need to psychologically wreck the mind of this new social acquintance in the case they would ever happen to slip to a path of distrust. Which, in turn, gives me control.

 

[WildC]

So, the essence of what you're saying is that you're a manipulative, cynical guy who doesn't place any value on other people's emotions/mind?

Regardless of whether or not you may be someones intellectual superior, does that give you the right to just "play" with people's minds in the way you suggest in the last paragraph of your post?

I've noticed posts like that a few times, where people just disregard common kindness and respect and say they act however they please, with no respect for authorities or the fellow man. Now, I'm not an authoritarian in any way, but I do see the need for commonly accepted social and infrastructural regulations.

Just because the rest of the world doesn't conform to the INTP-defined way of life/thinking does not mean they're discardable or worthless.

Some of you claim to come off as arrogant because others are just narrowminded, but I'm starting to believe that you truly are, in terms of viewing everyone else as inferior. That's a nasty amount of prejudice, and not really beneficial to the people who supposedly are the "objective thinkers".

 

[Olba]

So, the essence of what you're saying is that you're a manipulative, cynical guy who doesn't place any value on other people's emotions/mind?

Well, I'm not as actively manipulative as I maybe made myself sound. However, I do have the typical INTP trait of being a chameleon. Or in my case, I would call it actor. I tend to fill the void of silence with pointless chit chat, which has made me seem talkative, which is rather wrong. It's just that if I only said the things I see worthy of saying, people would regard me as a weirdo. And that, too, is a test of worth, in a way. If you can pick up the few lines of importance among all of the chit chat, grasp that, bring it up and lead a discussion on it, you've earned value in my eyes.

As for the value of other people, I don't know. I value sanity and knowledge, so if you have both of those and you are willing to share, I'm ok with that. But my common approach at emotions is a disliking one. If anything, emotions influence important decisions, which gives room for wrong decision.

Regardless of whether or not you may be someones intellectual superior, does that give you the right to just "play" with people's minds in the way you suggest in the last paragraph of your post?

No, it does not. And I don't regard myself as anything amazing, intellectually at least. But yes, I am an actor and sometimes even a shameless liar.

I've noticed posts like that a few times, where people just disregard common kindness and respect and say they act however they please, with no respect for authorities or the fellow man. Now, I'm not an authoritarian in any way, but I do see the need for commonly accepted social and infrastructural regulations.

Kindness? Respect? What are you talking about? Kindness is nothing but a social norm that hides out selfishness. Respect, on the other hand, is placing value to the opinions and views of others. Or who they are. The value of respect itself depends on the individual.

I respect those who have proven worthy of my respect. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but unless you're something exceptional, to me you're nothing but one of the many commoners who waste too much time on social interaction.

As for authorities, I respect them as long as they don't break their own rules.

Just because the rest of the world doesn't conform to the INTP-defined way of life/thinking does not mean they're discardable or worthless.

On an individualistic point, yes they are. A South-African politician who commits adultery doesn't mean anything to me. Nor should it to you, unless it's within your field of interest.

However yes, unless you're an exception, you need to be able to be part of the system.

Some of you claim to come off as arrogant because others are just narrowminded, but I'm starting to believe that you truly are, in terms of viewing everyone else as inferior. That's a nasty amount of prejudice, and not really beneficial to the people who supposedly are the "objective thinkers".

Prejudice? Ok, now you just lost a whole bucketful of points. Granted, I have a rather negative view on the influence of emotions in decision-making, but that cannot be seen as prejudice, it's a fact. It's a fact I've verified countless times via personal experience.

And if anything, I don't look at others as inferior by default. I just look at them
as normal, disposable, a part of a huge mass. However, this is changed if you're somehow exceptional. A very good example of the disposability of the average is the Finnish Army. We have a countless number of soldiers in total due to army being mandatory. Yes, we have countless soldiers. What does this allow? It makes it so that if one dies, we have another one to replace him or her. We don't have a squad of exceptionally skilled people.

 

[WildC]

Don't get me wrong, I believe emotions clouds vision/mental acuity as most other people around here do. I'm not a big fan of them in general. That does not mean I have the right to mess with other people's heads just for the heck of it though.

There's nothing wrong with the whole chameleon approach, as long as it's not to gain the upper hand in the way you had spelled out in the previous post. If I didn't use social facades to some extent, I wouldn't be able to talk at all with the people I live with (I live in student quarters).

By kindness I mean not being unnecessarily cruel or rude to other people. I don't care if that's some "abstract norm defined by society" or not, it's something that makes it easier for everyone to get along, and being nice to other people generally keeps them out of my affairs.

I respect everyone equally, from the start. What they do with that respect from there on is up to them, but I don't feel people need to earn my respect, I'm not someone special who is in a position to judge others, they'll get plenty of that from other sources.

I don't quite see the point of your statement about the South-African politician, I didn't say that everyone and everything in the world should be of ultimate importance to you, just that it is a pretty arrogant thing to, as you say,
"talk to people because I want to test them, to laugh at their weak points, to mock their stupidity."
I prefer the opposite approach; I talk to people to see if they have anything interesting/insightful to say, and if not I'll have had a chat nevertheless and maybe spent a bit of time that could have been better spent, but that's not a big deal.

My last paragraph was not directed at you as an individual, rather the collective "you". I dislike the english language for the lack of distinction between the two.
The only part about emotions influencing decisions in the last paragraph was about prejudice influencing INTP relations to others, not about the way emotions generally get in the way of the rational approach.

I hate emotions in politics and governing as much as the next person around here, particularly in the "game" between church and state.

I think I left something out, but I can't see what it is. Hm.

 

[Olba]

Don't get me wrong, I believe emotions clouds vision/mental acuity as most other people around here do. I'm not a big fan of them in general. That does not mean I have the right to mess with other people's heads just for the heck of it though.

But isn't "messing just for the heck of it" a way to describe science?

There's nothing wrong with the whole chameleon approach, as long as it's not to gain the upper hand in the way you had spelled out in the previous post. If I didn't use social facades to some extent, I wouldn't be able to talk at all with the people I live with (I live in student quarters).

Upper hand? I don't know. Well, I'm not actually sure what kind of a person I am, due to the fact that I change a lot depending on who I'm with. Guess it just makes me feel more secure, knowing that they cannot hurt me mentally. After all, mental harm is always worse than physical.

By kindness I mean not being unnecessarily cruel or rude to other people. I don't care if that's some "abstract norm defined by society" or not, it's something that makes it easier for everyone to get along, and being nice to other people generally keeps them out of my affairs.

I'm usually considered "rude" for the fact that I don't tell you what you wish to hear from me, I just say what I think needs to be said. So I'm considered rude because the society has a stupid norm that tells me that I'm supposedly not allowed to say that someone's dress is ugly or dislikable or simply inappropriate.

As for being cruel, I don't know. I lack the physical capability of being physically cruel. Whether boldness can be described as cruel or not, that is what I'm interested in.

I respect everyone equally, from the start. What they do with that respect from there on is up to them, but I don't feel people need to earn my respect, I'm not someone special who is in a position to judge others, they'll get plenty of that from other sources.

If people don't need to earn respect, that leads to them having respect only for existing, which is rather illogical. I believe that I do have the right to give my respect to whoever I see fit. After all, my respect is something that I own, something that is not to be controlled by someone else. It's a possession of mine.

I don't quite see the point of your statement about the South-African politician, I didn't say that everyone and everything in the world should be of ultimate importance to you, just that it is a pretty arrogant thing to, as you say,
"talk to people because I want to test them, to laugh at their weak points, to mock their stupidity."
I prefer the opposite approach; I talk to people to see if they have anything interesting/insightful to say, and if not I'll have had a chat nevertheless and maybe spent a bit of time that could have been better spent, but that's not a big deal.

Talking to people makes me see how typical and simple they are. That, in turn, makes them weak and stupid, because they are simple, incapable of seeing something that is outside simple.

More than often, I'm not mocking them, but getting angry at. I mean, if they don't see what I see, that either makes them stupid or me exceptional. And it would be rather arrogant of me to say that I'm exceptional, so I would rather look at it so that I'm normal and they are below it.

Maybe it's because I'm unable to see myself as exceptional. It, in turn, would probably arise from the desire of not being noticed. After all, if I'm noticed as exceptional, people will expect and demand more from me. But I'm just too lazy to be able to handle it without complaining. That's because I hate deadlines.

And expectations from someone who doesn't want to put ahead the effort required to reach optimal result in a huge array of things is something you should never have. But of course, the foolish commoner will see it as being my fault for not putting ahead the effort rather than the reason being them for expecting more from me in the first place.

 

[WildC]

Yes, messing with something for the heck of it is a good approach to learning stuff. But you were talking about messing with other people's minds for the heck of it, and I believe there's a distinction.

Your original post was not so much about making sure that you are impervious to outside manipulation as it was about stating how you excel at manipulating your surroundings, and in particular messing with people who you no longer trust/like. Which was the reason I wrote the reply in the first place. You seem to be changing your statement though, to something more sensible and less, well, manipulative.

It is none of my business if you act rude (or, as some would say, honest) to your surroundings. I was merely stating my own approach at things.
On the topic of being cruel, I don't believe being honest, arrogant, bold or rude falls in that category at all. Cruel in this setting would be something along the lines of doing what you proposed in the first post, namely;
"... I have all that I need to psychologically wreck the mind of this new social acquintance in the case they would ever happen to slip to a path of distrust. ..."

There is no need to become so possessive of your own respect and who you choose to give it to. I was ranting about my own perception of respect. At the end of the day, I can't blame you for having a different view of people around you. I know I shouldn't reasonably have as altruistic an approach to other people as I do, given my life so far. Alas, such is life, filled with contradictions and oddities. That very approach probably does not shine through online, where my social ineptitude doesn't show in the same way. However, people also tend to have more of a structured argument, so it's easier to relate to, less time spent acting nice.

 

[EditorOne]

"Some of you claim to come off as arrogant because others are just narrowminded, but I'm starting to believe that you truly are, in terms of viewing everyone else as inferior. That's a nasty amount of prejudice, and not really beneficial to the people who supposedly are the "objective thinkers"."

Well, a thought I've had recently is this: There seems to be an assumption that INTP means above-average intelligence. "Objective thinker" would seem to be another common assumption. But why?

Consider the possibility that INTP might be INTP without being particularly intelligent. I mean, we're assuming our thinking is superior and that's why we rely on it. But what if we are just hardwired to rely on it and that has no relationship to our intelligence? (or objectivity).

Just a disturbing thought to rattle everyone's self confidence. I mean, why should I suffer alone? :-)

 

[WildC]

An excellent question, and one that I have pondered myself from time to time.
I've taken up enough time in this thread already though, so I'll let others answer it.

 

[Ermine]

Well, a thought I've had recently is this: There seems to be an assumption that INTP means above-average intelligence. "Objective thinker" would seem to be another common assumption. But why?

Consider the possibility that INTP might be INTP without being particularly intelligent. I mean, we're assuming our thinking is superior and that's why we rely on it. But what if we are just hardwired to rely on it and that has no relationship to our intelligence? (or objectivity).

I think above average intelligence isn't standard for being an INTP as much as thinking differently is. It seems no matter how intelligent or unintelligent my ideas are (believe me, I've come up with dumb ideas before), they are always singular due to a different perspective.

As introverts, we tend to look inward. Being constantly focused on oneself can lead to being self-centered. Self centered people tend to rely on their attributes, which in the case of an INTP, is often above average intelligence.

Can't say my self confidence is rattled, though. Above average intelligence is just the way I get good grades in school without much effort and one of the reasons for my being somewhat alienated, not much more.

 

[Olba]

Yes, messing with something for the heck of it is a good approach to learning stuff. But you were talking about messing with other people's minds for the heck of it, and I believe there's a distinction.

But of course. But you do realize that if I was a bit meaner than I am, I could've simply made the easy connection about how "messing with someone's mind" is the same as "messing with something", where "something" is actually determined? Thus making it a learning lessons on one's mind.

Your original post was not so much about making sure that you are impervious to outside manipulation as it was about stating how you excel at manipulating your surroundings, and in particular messing with people who you no longer trust/like. Which was the reason I wrote the reply in the first place. You seem to be changing your statement though, to something more sensible and less, well, manipulative.

I don't need to make sure that I'm impervious to manipulation, I am. Manipulating a person who is as skeptic and analytical as I am would be a miracle.

As for "no longer trust/like". I would rather have to separate the two things. I doubt I ever implied that I would be ready to do something just because I dislike someone? And what comes to "no longer", I don't place my trust on people to start with. Not unless there's something exceptional about them.

It is none of my business if you act rude (or, as some would say, honest) to your surroundings. I was merely stating my own approach at things.
On the topic of being cruel, I don't believe being honest, arrogant, bold or rude falls in that category at all. Cruel in this setting would be something along the lines of doing what you proposed in the first post, namely;
"... I have all that I need to psychologically wreck the mind of this new social acquintance in the case they would ever happen to slip to a path of distrust. ..."

Maybe I made myself sound a lot more than I am, in actual real-life I'm usually not willing to do things in the first place. And I don't usually hate people. It's a lot more likely that I simply switch them from one category to another. And yes, I do categorize people based on the impression they give and the actions they take.

Consider the possibility that INTP might be INTP without being particularly intelligent. I mean, we're assuming our thinking is superior and that's why we rely on it. But what if we are just hardwired to rely on it and that has no relationship to our intelligence? (or objectivity).

Personally, I don't even think that I'm more intelligent than others. And I was quite astonished to find that other people couldn't make the same connections at all that I thought were common sense. This has been especially evident in debates or when trying to define something.

I think the stereotypical "INTPs are geniuses"-label is a bit misleading. This is especially true if you look at some theories of intelligence, such as the Gardner one. I mean, it has categories such as musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, logic-mathematical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, visual-spatial intelligence and kinesthetic intelligence. If you compare their definitions to the INTP, you would see that we would seem to be specifically strong in interpersonal intelligence and musical intelligence, whereas we would be one of the weakest in intrapersonal intelligence. This is a rather obvious conclusion because it was never defined that INTPs are good in making the logical or mathematical connections. Yes, it is said that they understand the idea behind things, but nowhere does it say we can routinely excel in mathematics or logical processing.

 

[Cabbo Pearimo]

"Just let me think. By myself. I don't want to dance with you. No, I will not take cocaine! Okay, maybe a little..."

 

[loveofreason]

"Some of you claim to come off as arrogant because others are just narrowminded, but I'm starting to believe that you truly are, in terms of viewing everyone else as inferior. That's a nasty amount of prejudice, and not really beneficial to the people who supposedly are the "objective thinkers"."

Well, a thought I've had recently is this: There seems to be an assumption that INTP means above-average intelligence. "Objective thinker" would seem to be another common assumption. But why?

Consider the possibility that INTP might be INTP without being particularly intelligent. I mean, we're assuming our thinking is superior and that's why we rely on it. But what if we are just hardwired to rely on it and that has no relationship to our intelligence? (or objectivity).

Just a disturbing thought to rattle everyone's self confidence. I mean, why should I suffer alone? :-)

We certainly have our blind spots.

Sometimes I wonder if I have to think so damn hard because I'm deficient in some way.

Introversion can get us lost running in ever decreasing circles within our own worlds - who is to say our interiority is superior to any other? Where I am small, lost and confused within an ever-rambling interior, another may be large, commanding and centred in their bright well defined internal room. Which of us is 'better'?

If arrogance is the tendency to assume one's capacity to suffer internally is greater than another's then I'm guilty.