N as a factor of INTP.

[QuickTwist]

I intend to prove that the N trait of the INTP is the dominant function in that N is what carries the INTP throughout its behaviors. I would like to, after having made this argument, create a mathematical explanation of an INTPs behavior and what parts predominantly are present in what an INTP is in the process of making a decision using their intuition. This explanation is explained in the format of matrices and the process I used is three different matrices multiplied by one another. If N is the primary function that governs how the INTP makes decisions then my theory will follow traditional Jungian theory with the exception that Ti is the primary function. It is written in the form of N as a function of I, T and P respectively. It must first be understood that three matrices multiplied by one another has the following sequence: A*B*C=A*C+B*C. I am open to criticism in hopes that the traditional Jungian theory is in tandem with mine.

N--I-T-P----------N--I-T-P--------N--I-T P----------N--I-T-P
[n l 1 1 1]---------[n l 0 1 0]------[n l 1 0 0]---------[n l 0 1 0]
[n l 0 1 1]----*----[n l 1 0 1]--+---[n l 1 1 0]----*---[n l 1 0 1]
[n l 0 0 1]---------[n l 0 1 1]------[n l 1 1 1]---------[n l 0 1 1]
____________=____________ ____________=____________
----------N--I-T-P--------------------------N--I-T-P----------
---------[n l 0 1 0]-------------------------[n l 0 0 0]----------
---------[n l 0 0 1]-------------+-----------[n l 1 0 0]----------
---------[n l 0 0 1]-------------------------[n l 0 1 1]----------
____________________=_________________
----------------------------N--I-T-P---------------------------
---------------------------[n l 0 1 0]---------------------------
---------------------------[n l 1 0 1]---------------------------
---------------------------[n l 0 1 2]---------------------------

What we see here is that when taking in information the application of an INTP in their behavior the P is the predominant source for what they do with the information that they have taken in and T is the second indicator as to what decision is to be made and I being a small portion indicates that if left to their own, the INTP will naturally gravitate toward wanting to make the decision for themselves. I know this is not a complete analysis but granted that you can read between the lines I think you will see that this assessment is accurate. In short the INTP takes in information waits to make a decision thinks about what to do and then makes the decision by themselves.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think you just did in math what I described and drew here.

 

[Black Rose]

but then where does that leave ENTP

Ne-Ti
Ti-Ne

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

There are some things money can't buy. For everything else there is Ne.

Some or many, If I were to use only Ti I would never consider eating.

but then where does that leave ENTP

Ne-Ti
Ti-Ne

True, ENTP/INTP are quite interchangeable, however there is a tendency that gives a call.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If I were to use only Ti I would never consider eating.

Interesting, in that ENTPs don't realize they're hungry because Ne won't give them a break. Eating is so Si, dontcha know?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Interesting, in that ENTPs don't realize they're hungry because Ne won't give them a break. Eating is so Si, dontcha know?

The need to eat would be Si, the actual momentary urge to go and eat would be Ne, Ti would apply when you have actually considered what and why you will eat. Or at least I view it so.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The need to eat would be Si, the actual momentary urge to go and eat would be Ne, Ti would apply when you have actually considered what and why you will eat. Or at least I view it so.

^Compared to (quite literally): "Hey, I'm hungry" *runs around the house deciding what to eat, eating while he goes, to the point where he never decides because by that time he's full of whatever he's been eating*

 

[redbaron]

MBTI already does what you're talking about. Hence why the J/P label is based on the first extroverted function.

Kind of redundant really.

 

[QuickTwist]

I think you just did in math what I described and drew here.

To me this makes the claim more accurate in the fact that we came up with the same conclusion separate from each other.

but then where does that leave ENTP

Ne-Ti
Ti-Ne

My premise here is that INTPs tend to make decisions based on the information they receive rather than what they think about so it can still be true that Ti is the dominant function of an INTP.

MBTI already does what you're talking about. Hence why the J/P label is based on the first extroverted function.

Kind of redundant really.

The difference between what I did and what others do is that I provide evidence on a mathematical level while typical Jungian theory is done without that. All your comment does is make my explanation more valid and solidifies my findings.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

To me this makes the claim more accurate in the fact that we came up with the same conclusion separate from each other.

Use your matrix to build a structure of types (for example, Ne and Ti in ENTP and INTP would share the same points/joints), and you get something like this.

 

[QuickTwist]

@THD, and interesting read. No doubt there is something to be said for understanding the complexities of the big picture.

I would say the for ENTP that T would be a factor of P, E and N.

I forgot to mention that my model works even in the event that there are varying degrees of each said function, for example you can plug in your percentages of the different degrees of how strong the singular letter representation is. Viewing this as an INTP it would look like 6 l 5 9 14 for example.

 

[ElvenVeil]

I am not very good at knowing whether people are joking or actually serious when reading very very silly things. If you would think that Si is a source of wanting to E.G eat then sigh..

to the actual thread.. (again I don't know whether it is just a joke or whether the OP is actually serious about it. But I will approach it with an assumption that it is to be taken serious)

I can see that it is a sort of fun *toung in cheek* thing to put MBTI classification (4 letter descriptions) to show how a specific personality works. To talk about proving anything within MBTI is first of all a fools errand in itself, not taking into account what MBTI actually is.. Adding matrices does not change that.

I think the main issue that I see on the internet when it comes to trying to 'uncover' MBTI is the complete lack of ontological considerations, along with theories that are never related to reality and observations. Tautological systems very often occur it seems, such as Pod'lair.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What's so serious about your sigh or this thread. Putting numbers to help represent abstract ideas without formal support is what you get. If you want to keep strictly ontological then there is very little to be proven without relying on assumptions or building false tautologies.

A post is not necessarily a falsifiable hypothesis when misunderstood in the context. Some posts are here for some reasons other than building an ontologically definable proof base. There are other methods availible.

 

[QuickTwist]

I am not very good at knowing whether people are joking or actually serious when reading very very silly things. If you would think that Si is a source of wanting to E.G eat then sigh..

to the actual thread.. (again I don't know whether it is just a joke or whether the OP is actually serious about it. But I will approach it with an assumption that it is to be taken serious)

I can see that it is a sort of fun *toung in cheek* thing to put MBTI classification (4 letter descriptions) to show how a specific personality works. To talk about proving anything within MBTI is first of all a fools errand in itself, not taking into account what MBTI actually is.. Adding matrices does not change that.

I think the main issue that I see on the internet when it comes to trying to 'uncover' MBTI is the complete lack of ontological considerations, along with theories that are never related to reality and observations. Tautological systems very often occur it seems, such as Pod'lair.

If you would rather portray your observation in a more close minded rather than creative outlook it is no wonder why you would say this.

Essentially I wanted to prove that this was a proof within the theory if in fact Jungian theory holds true. Observation and experimentation along with the desire for objective reasoning is pinnacle to an INTP. To say it is unnecessary is redundant in this context. I am simply exercising my creativity. If you have nothing constructive to say and prefer to focus on the negative, that is your prerogative but unless you have something useful to say I suggest you leave this thread be for sake of more creative and pondering minds.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

If you would think that Si is a source of wanting to E.G eat then sigh..

Fine... Not the source, but the inferior pull in an ENTP that allows things like "Hey, I haven't eaten in 14 hours and my stomach is grumbling" to come into one's awareness, that may translate to an INTP...?

I suggest you leave this thread be for sake of more creative and pondering minds.

This.... this can't end well.

 

[ElvenVeil]

If you have nothing constructive to say and prefer to focus on the negative, that is your prerogative but unless you have something useful to say I suggest you leave this thread be for sake of more creative and pondering minds.

What's so serious about your sigh or this thread. Putting numbers to help represent abstract ideas without formal support is what you get. If you want to keep strictly ontological then there is very little to be proven without relying on assumptions or building false tautologies.

A post is not necessarily a falsifiable hypothesis when misunderstood in the context. Some posts are here for some reasons other than building an ontologically definable proof base. There are other methods availible.

I think you misunderstand slightly. I dont write to hurt people's feelings. I never claimed that you need to build a proof base, as that would be completely against what I am saying. I am saying that if MBTI by its very nature cannot be proved, it is pointless and misleading to have a notion of proving things. If can't prove things within MBTI then yes other methods must be used to investigate theories. Many sciences face this reality.. In the specific case it might be fun to use math, as I wrote, but it may not say a lot about the system aside functioning as analogy of an already existing point.

Fine... Not the source, but the inferior pull in an ENTP that allows things like "Hey, I haven't eaten in 14 hours and my stomach is grumbling" to come into one's awareness, that may translate to an INTP...?

But I do know the feeling of being hungry, but I would never attribute it to functions.. If functions are supposed to represent behavior patterns internally and externally, it to me doesn't seem to serve any purpose to add basic human needs and requirements. It would take away the foundation and use of MBTI ?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

But I do know the feeling of being hungry, but I would never attribute it to functions.. If functions are supposed to represent behavior patterns internally and externally, it to me doesn't seem to serve any purpose to add basic human needs and requirements. It would take away the foundation and use of MBTI ?

I think the missing piece of the puzzle is that I'm assuming that there are observable differences in eating behaviors between different types (and well, I'll argue that there is evidence for this). For me it doesn't take away from the foundation, but adds to it. Another layer (you don't know me all that well, but I have a... thing... for layers ), or at least some interlayer infrastructure. Analogous example:

Spoiler

(Do note that layers can be added inside or outside). I mean, sure, if you focus exclusively on an inner or outermost layer, you don't get the holistic understanding, if that's what you're saying. (In which case it's also what I'm saying. )

 

[ElvenVeil]

I think the missing piece of the puzzle is that I'm assuming that there are observable differences in eating behaviors between different types (and well, I'll argue that there is evidence for this). For me it doesn't take away from the foundation, but adds to it. Another layer (you don't know me all that well, but I have a... thing... for layers ), or at least some interlayer infrastructure. Analogous example:

Spoiler

(Do note that layers can be added inside or outside). I mean, sure, if you focus exclusively on an inner or outermost layer, you don't get the holistic understanding, if that's what you're saying. (In which case it's also what I'm saying. )

yeah that was the missing part : ) . I would love to hear your thoughts as I have never thought about this. Could I convince you to tell me your thoughts in for instance a pm? (or some other mean). It would be very appreciated .

 

[redbaron]

I am not very good at knowing whether people are joking or actually serious when reading very very silly things. If you would think that Si is a source of wanting to E.G eat then sigh..

to the actual thread.. (again I don't know whether it is just a joke or whether the OP is actually serious about it. But I will approach it with an assumption that it is to be taken serious)

I can see that it is a sort of fun *toung in cheek* thing to put MBTI classification (4 letter descriptions) to show how a specific personality works. To talk about proving anything within MBTI is first of all a fools errand in itself, not taking into account what MBTI actually is.. Adding matrices does not change that.

I think the main issue that I see on the internet when it comes to trying to 'uncover' MBTI is the complete lack of ontological considerations, along with theories that are never related to reality and observations. Tautological systems very often occur it seems, such as Pod'lair.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i agree with the agreement above

 

[Cherry Cola]

I agree with the agreement agreeing with the agreement above

Also Quicktwist you need to learn to deal with criticism, now you went and called Elvenveil close-minded in contrast to creative first thing in your first reply to him/her. That really doesn't say anything anyway. I could as well call you close-minded since you do not consider criticism without first erecting a mental barrier putting you on the creative side and the opponent on the close-minded so that all else follows with that in mind.

 

[Base groove]

I agree with the criticism dealing with the criticism above.

 

[BigApplePi]

@ElvenVeil.

But I do know the feeling of being hungry, but I would never attribute it to functions.. If functions are supposed to represent behavior patterns internally and externally, it to me doesn't seem to serve any purpose to add basic human needs and requirements. It would take away the foundation and use of MBTI ?

I've completely lost you. While the feeling of being hungry may arise from unconscious bodily forces, once being hungry becomes conscious, doesn't this give rise to behavior? It is sensed and if perceived as internal, we have Si. You disagree?

Isn't this a good enough ontological foundation ... for at least one cognitive function?

 

[Pizzabeak]

So basically, this proves you're intp?

 

[QuickTwist]

Some peoples activity in this thread are only to criticizing and no construction is given for how and why. Some people are solely focusing on the negative and don't really give any credit to why I made this thread in the first place. As I stated earlier I made this thread to exercise my creativity. Not agreeing with the theory and asking why it is implemented would be a step in the right direction in my opinion but I see none of that. All I am getting from people who disagree on the premises is that they don't agree.

@ElvenVeil, To be honest I completely understand why you made that comment. You wanted to contribute something but can't find anything to say other than that its not a good idea to try to make a proof inside of a somewhat subjective theory. Your original post didn't have anything in it I didn't already know which is why, and I must state this again to clarify, I said I did it out of creativity and nothing more.

P.S. I am not offended, I am simply defending myself.

 

[Base groove]

P.S. I am not offended, I am simply defending myself.

The absurdity of this statement has been recognized.

 

[Analyzer]

I'm impressed.

 

[ElvenVeil]

@ElvenVeil.I've completely lost you. While the feeling of being hungry may arise from unconscious bodily forces, once being hungry becomes conscious, doesn't this give rise to behavior? It is sensed and if perceived as internal, we have Si. You disagree?

Isn't this a good enough ontological foundation ... for at least one cognitive function?

I do disagree, but for a different reason than with the math thingy. In a sense, if you want to include very many things in a system you often weaken it, and if you wish to include everything, you render it useless.

MBTI isn't just about behavior, but it has its strength and focus in making categorization where we as human differentiate from each other; Where we are similar and different. If we add "being hungry" you could say that it is some manner of sensing if you prefer, but it would not add to anything useful within the system. If hunger was a lot more common in sensing people, it would suddenly increase a lot. Without it being something specific to certain types, it ends up being something attributed to every type, to the same degre, and therefore does not give us anything new. It would also mess up the whole idea of having functions placed in a certain order, but that might be a point that is a subset of the one above.

MBTIs strength lies in its fairly simple system, which gives us a lot of tools to undesrstand diffferent natural responses to information. (information might be a better choice of words than behavior now that I think of it)

 

[QuickTwist]

So basically, this proves you're intp?

You are on the right track without knowing it, that is, if you are being sarcastic. In this case it is actually kinda the inverse of that. No one can prove their INTPness or any other type for that matter. But, Giving credit to ones own type it is easy to understand the trends that the said type give off. My model is not accurate, at least, no more accurate than any MBTI theory out there. My theory relies on the correct input of numbers and their location. In short if you mess with the numbers or number location you will get vastly different results. Honestly I was wondering if anyone would pick up on this but it seems to have eluded those who decided to take a look at it. ElvenVeil gets some credit to observing that you can't prove something within a theory but didn't get the whole chunk which is why I pressed them. To be honest I was trying to be creative and wondered if people would pick up on the flaws of my own creativity. I wondered if anyone would try to prove my proof wrong and no one really did. I wondered if any one knew more about matrix algebra and if they would've cared to disprove my findings and no one did. To me it is a little depressing that we have a forum (ideally for INTPs) of such smart people and no one cares to correct a simple manipulation of numbers to provide evidence for their argument. I basically just used what I had and it was good enough to fool most. If you look at the OPs date you will see that it is exactly 1 year from my join date. I thought I would do something special for the day.