Just Looking

[spring_rising]

And dipping my feet in the water here. I guess I am an INTP (perhaps), and I know for sure my dead fiance was one. I miss his companionship and after reading the posts here it reminded me of him and our many conversations. I think we drove each other quite batty at times, but most times I am alone these days and miss the intellectual back and forth banter we had. Just thought that I might meet some interesting people here. You all seem relatively intelligent and well, mildly respectful. So just thought I would say hello and see if I like this forum.

 

[nexion]

Hello.

If I may ask a question, what subjects did your conversations typically consist of?

 

[Anthile]

Huh?

 

[spring_rising]

Hello.

If I may ask a question, what subjects did your conversations typically consist of?

Philosophy mainly. Sometimes we discussed politics, but mostly philosophy. I am far more apolitical now than I used to be. He was very brilliant. We also talked about chess a lot since he was the second best chess player in our state. I was more of a linguist. So for him it was chess and philosophy, for me it was language.

 

[spring_rising]

Huh?

Exactly.

 

[Glordag]

Welcome!

If you're looking to be driven batty again, then you've come to the right place.

 

[nexion]

Philosophy mainly. Sometimes we discussed politics, but mostly philosophy. I am far more apolitical now than I used to be. He was very brilliant. We also talked about chess a lot since he was the second best chess player in our state. I was more of a linguist. So for him it was chess and philosophy, for me it was language.

Ah. I do love philosophy. I delve into politics somewhat as well but it is never satisfying and the theory is rarely the same as the practice. Besides, why should such a thing interest me?

I play Chess some. I don't know if I could ever talk about. I never learned any chess strategy though, so that's probably why.

 

[Glordag]

Ah. I do love philosophy. I delve into politics somewhat as well but it is never satisfying and the theory is rarely the same as the practice. Besides, why should such a thing interest me?

I play Chess some. I don't know if I could ever talk about. I never learned any chess strategy though, so that's probably why.

Chess is a fascinating game. I've put many, many hours into it, though I'm still only an average player at the competitive level. You can spend quite a while talking about it once you really get into the strategy.

 

[Jesse]

Hey.

Languages yuk, one of my biggest failings is my inability to learn new languages so I admire those who can. I love the theory of politics but mostly it drives me insane and I do my best to ignore it. I think everyone on this forum shares the love of having philosophical debates so you'll fit right in here.

 

[loveofreason]

Welcome, hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[Jennywocky]

Just thought that I might meet some interesting people here. You all seem relatively intelligent and well, mildly respectful.

That would be a decent assessment, as opposed to some other INTP feeding grounds.

I'm sorry about your fiance and the loss you are feeling; I hope you find some measure of filling that here or wherever you end up going.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Welcome spring_rising.

 

[Words]

Chess is rationally hated upon. As oppose to it being an instrument of experimentation, it is largely a puzzle of perception. It is an Ni game, not an Ne game.

With Ne, you test and test and test all possible movements and you end up losing for the sake of your experimentation. Though, after a certain period of "Ne tests", your Si builds up and you master the game. Regardless, winning is beside the point. The external ideation involved is too limited to get you going.

With Ni, you are stimulated all throughout.

 

[Glordag]

Chess is rationally hated upon. As oppose to it being an instrument of experimentation, it is largely a puzzle of perception. It is an Ni game, not an Ne game.

With Ne, you test and test and test all possible movements and you end up losing for the sake of your experimentation. Though, after a certain period of "Ne tests", your Si builds up and you master the game. Regardless, winning is beside the point. The external ideation involved is too limited to get you going.

With Ni, you are stimulated all throughout.

The joy of chess for me is in the theorizing that largely occurs outside of an actual game. I enjoy thinking about possible variations, researching strategy, going over games that others played, etc. Actually playing the game is pretty stressful for me, since I hate having to commit to a move.

 

[Words]

The joy of chess for me is in the theorizing that largely occurs outside of an actual game. I enjoy thinking about possible variations, researching strategy, going over games that others played, etc. Actually playing the game is pretty stressful for me, since I hate having to commit to a move.

Yes. This is what I'm talking about. Manipulation of the external is just too limited. You are contained in a narrow perception. (and that perception has to be good for you to win. which is why Ni wins)

 

[Jennywocky]

Actually playing the game is pretty stressful for me, since I hate having to commit to a move.

I agree.

I'd much rather think about playing chess than actually play chess.

 

[nexion]

Hey.

Languages yuk, one of my biggest failings is my inability to learn new languages so I admire those who can. I love the theory of politics but mostly it drives me insane and I do my best to ignore it. I think everyone on this forum shares the love of having philosophical debates so you'll fit right in here.

Learning languages sucks. The study of the more general idea of language and how it relates to things is amazing.

Welcome, hope you find what you're looking for.

That's deep.

Chess is rationally hated upon. As oppose to it being an instrument of experimentation, it is largely a puzzle of perception. It is an Ni game, not an Ne game.

With Ne, you test and test and test all possible movements and you end up losing for the sake of your experimentation. Though, after a certain period of "Ne tests", your Si builds up and you master the game. Regardless, winning is beside the point. The external ideation involved is too limited to get you going.

With Ni, you are stimulated all throughout.

I can't understand this. Do I play chess with Ne? I doubt it. Maybe some, but for the most part, while playing, I can fairly accurately perceive the outcome of a given move considering the current variables, and so experimentation is a lot less important.

 

[Glordag]

I can't understand this. Do I play chess with Ne? I doubt it. Maybe some, but for the most part, while playing, I can fairly accurately perceive the outcome of a given move considering the current variables, and so experimentation is a lot less important.

I think that's his point, actually. If you ascribe to the belief that INTP is auxiliary Ne, then that makes the act of playing chess a little less comfortable for us, as we have to branch outside of our preferred method of perceiving. That said, I'm not entirely sure if all of that is true. *shrug* There have been some studies done on the thinking process involved with chess...maybe they will delve into this further in the future.

 

[Words]

I can't understand this. Do I play chess with Ne? I doubt it. Maybe some, but for the most part, while playing, I can fairly accurately perceive the outcome of a given move considering the current variables, and so experimentation is a lot less important.

The problem is that one move is rigidly linked to another, so in order to enjoy the activity, one must like to perceive in a "puzzle" sort of way(Introverted way).

For Ne, you play with the strategies. It doesn't have to be "one move", it could be 'sets of moves'. The problem with chess is that the scenarios are highly transitory. You obtain a set of moves for a certain condition(Si) but since the conditions continuously shifts, you are forced to continuously recognize less familiar environments. Thus, you tap into Si more than you tap into Ne. Therefore, The lack of potential for experimentation as oppose to the abundance of realization.

and, yes, it's exactly because you don't use Ne much. You just keep perceiving outcomes instead of present surroundings.

 

[Jesse]

Does every intro thread get derailed? It's like a law or something.

 

[nexion]

The problem is that one move is rigidly linked to another, so in order to enjoy the activity, one must like to perceive in a "puzzle" sort of way(Introverted way).

For Ne, you play with the strategies. It doesn't have to be "one move", it could be 'sets of moves'. The problem with chess is that the scenarios are highly transitory. You obtain a set of moves for a certain condition(Si) but since the conditions continuously shifts, you are forced to continuously recognize less familiar environments. Thus, you tap into Si more than you tap into Ne. Therefore, The lack of potential for experimentation as oppose to the abundance of realization.

and, yes, it's exactly because you don't use Ne much. You just keep perceiving outcomes instead of present surroundings.

I really think I use Ne somewhat often (at least, according to my understanding of what Ne is), maybe just not in playing chess.

 

[nexion]

Does every intro thread get derail? It's like a law or something.

Yes. It's obligatory.