Nature + INTP = ?

[LcDel]

So from what I have gathered from the people who have the multiple intelligence graph in their signature, nature doesn't seem to work well with an INTP personality. This surprised me greatly, as I have a deep love for nature. Maybe that's my inner writer and artist speaking instead of my inner INTP. Hm.
Am I just drawing conclusions form coincidental similarities? What's your take?

 

[lenh]

I do enjoy nature. But I don't have the need to live with it.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't really understand what the construct of naturalistic intelligence entails. It can't just be the extent to which you enjoy natural things can it? A perception of the interconnectedness of the universe? These things IMO equate less to an intelligence type than a position or predisposition.

I'm a born and bread bush kid hippy, but quite frankly the extra effort involved in living closer to nature is a bother, and I rarely visit my parents because of this.

 

[LcDel]

Yeah, I didn't really mean love of nature as enjoyment in looking at plants.
It's hard to describe, but for me immersing myself in it (alone) feels enlightening. Like my eyes open and I'm looking at the Truth. Everything all connects and feels so much more harmonious than the more material side of the world.

 

[Turniphead]

I love nature*. As in the non human parts of the world. I wish I had been raised with the skills to survive in the wild.
Landscapes and natural phenomena are probably the things that effect me most on a profound emotional level.


*I'm often annoyed at the contexts in which the word "nature" is used. I don't think humans and the rest of the world can really be separated in a very meaningful way. It's all a bit fuzzy. So I use the word with some reservation.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I like the tranquility of nature. Living in the natural elements is an annoyance though. If I had to, I wouldn't complain about adapting but it's not something I prefer.

 

[Turniphead]

Everything all connects and feels so much more harmonious than the more material side of the world.

I have felt similar.
Perhaps it's the lack of control being imposed on everything. The chaos is free. But it's also all being chaotic together. So strange...

 

[Hadoblado]

That sounds wonderful, but I still do not really understand how it is a type of intelligence. Some of the people I have met who claim similar experiences (again it sounds great), I would categorise as naturalistically stupid, as they demonstrate remarkable inability to understand nature, only that it is somehow valuable (though they cannot tell me why).

I am not poking fun at you, I actually see this as an opportunity to understand something that has confused me for awhile. Is it a sense of 'oneness'?

wiki on naturalist intelligence: This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to one’s natural surroundings. Examples include classifying natural forms such as animal and plant species and rocks and mountain types; and the applied knowledge of nature in farming, mining, etc. Careers which suit those with this intelligence include naturalists, farmers and gardeners.

This sounds to me like the postulation of conceptual entities beyond necessity (or w/e that razor is). Categorising and applying information IMO does not warrant a special intelligence type if the information in question is associated with our natural environment.

If I am correct in this, then an implication would be that INTP's may have the cognitive horsepower to score highly in this dimension of Gardner's multiple intelligences, but only if they also have the interest and/or immersive predisposition.

 

[Turniphead]

Don't know who exactly you are addressing, buuut...

Makes sense to me.
I don't really understand it as an intelligence either. It just seems to be describing being aware of the world outside your head.

Sense of oneness? No. Sense of community outside of myself, yes. That's maybe the best way to describe it for me.
It's how I would imagine some people feel connected to communities of people in a meaningful way. I've never felt that for people, but for "nature". Yes.

 

[Hadoblado]

I was addressing the OP, by the time I finished my post, you guys had posted. Your response is appreciated however.

 

[LcDel]

That sounds wonderful, but I still do not really understand how it is a type of intelligence. Some of the people I have met who claim similar experiences (again it sounds great), I would categorise as naturalistically stupid, as they demonstrate remarkable inability to understand nature, only that it is somehow valuable (though they cannot tell me why).

I am not poking fun at you, I actually see this as an opportunity to understand something that has confused me for awhile. Is it a sense of 'oneness'?

What I was wondering is if the typical mindset of an INTP effects how he/she views nature and connections with it. I wasn't so much trying to categorize nature as a form of intelligence; I was wondering if a typical aspect of the INTP personality created a sort of dissonance with nature as it does with the social world.

I'm finding it rather difficult to describe, but if you have ever unexpectedly stumbled across some fascinating new idea or theory that opens up a whole new world of thinking to you that you were unaware of, it's like that. I'm surprised that the people you know seem unable to understand nature, because personally, I usually feel very acutely aware of my surroundings and how everything is interconnected when I'm immersed in it. That mindset helps connect to the more instinctual side of the brain that mainly feels and senses, a connection that is important for an INTP especially to develop in order to mature. Yet I wonder if that is the very "feeling" aspect of nature that seemingly prevents many INTPs from making the connection, which brings us back to my previous paragraph.

 

[Auburn]

What you're describing (the essence, and of which one product is this resonance with environment/nature) sounds more like Ni/Se. You might actually be an INFJ (which as the configuration of: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) :3

INTPs don't have a very strong connection with nature, not by default. If there is any, it is very particular and limited (Si). It will be a type of nostalgia for familiar places, perhaps where, accidentally, they had positive experienced or just lack of negative experiences. Or a smell that used to exist in their old home or neighborhood. But it's on a *trigger* basis. Something familiar sets it off, and suddenly the INTP feels at home in their environment, but otherwise they don't have a connection to surroundings.

By default, INTPs view reality as a type of simulation of the laws of physics as they best know them; not the physical world itself. And they watch curiously how things unfold in this hypothetical, and better refine their understanding of the laws by it. So in a sense, the majority of the time life seems surreal and impersonal - except when moments of Si occur.

 

[Hadoblado]

INTPs don't have a very strong connection with nature, not by default. If there is any, it is very particular and limited (Si). It will be a type of nostalgia for familiar places, perhaps where, accidentally, they had positive experienced or just lack of negative experiences. Or a smell that used to exist in their old home or neighborhood. But it's on a *trigger* basis. Something familiar sets it off, and suddenly the INTP feels at home in their environment, but otherwise they don't have a connection to surroundings.

This is a very accurate description of my relationship with nature.

@OP: When I refer to people's naturalistic stupidity, I refer more to their inability to consider trees and the such in a non-spiritual manner. Their understanding of the nature they so love is flawed and inconsistent. Their awareness was probably acute, tho inaccurate and misguided.

 

[intpz]

I don't understand naturalistic intelligence either...

I like nature as fresh air outside the city and cherries that grow nearby. I also love the silence when I'm away from the city (take a long walk), no cars, no people, no kids, no screams. If there are people, you don't have to shout to address someone, and when walking down a busy street, you don't feel the need to tape your ears.

Other than that, any "special" or "spiritual" connection, I don't understand that. I'd say that would be the opposite of intelligence in some cases.

 

[Silphiums]

Interesting topic, and actually (though not directly related to INTPs or MBTI) one I spent nearly 4 years researching and teaching - people's concepts of, and relationship to, nature. Fascinating, truly.

As a grad student and even now as I work for an environmental education center I am surrounded by 'naturalists' - people who LOVE BEING outside. I don't understand that love of just being outside. I don't love being outside (true confessions) in the same way - I am, however, fascinated with observing the 'natural' (let's not get into the definitions there) world. Understanding how (and dare I say, why) things work and grow and form communities seemingly without intent is a constant source of amazement and something I will never truly understand - which is awesome.

In some ways I'm a little perplexed and jealous of these folks who so enjoy just being, and have an inner drive to be and exist outside, in nature, in wilderness, etc. I don't. I like my bodily fluids and prefer not to offer them up to parasites.

But, I guess back on topic a bit more, I might consider naturalistic intelligence to have an intuitive take on natural relationships - perhaps insight or a feeling of how these systems evolved together and work together, and how if you shake one part of the system how other parts of the system might be effected.

I unfortunately know lots of people who consider themselves, and are, in fact, professional Naturalists who have absolutely no naturalistic intelligence. They are good at regurgitating what others have told them with no real feel for the systems they purport to love.

I will, however, never know their ability to just experience and feel a connection to those systems on some other level of existence. I've interviewed people and tried to pick at those feelings, but it's something I'll never know. My connections come via a deep respect and appreciation of the crazy ways independent species have evolved complex relationships.

But, where I will never feel a connection to nature on that inner emotional level, most others will never be able to read the landscape and have an immediate, intuitive grasp on the multi-scale systems evolution that created it. It's all a trade off I guess.

Wait, what was the question?

 

[LcDel]

What you're describing (the essence, and of which one product is this resonance with environment/nature) sounds more like Ni/Se. You might actually be an INFJ (which as the configuration of: Ni-Fe-Ti-Se) :3

I can see how it's not very INTP-like to have that connection, but as I said in another thread, I have found connections to myself in almost every introverted MBTI category, INFJ especially. INTP always fits me better in the end, though, and every test I've taken (and I've taken quite a few for the most definite results possible) has labeled me an INTP. I doubt one can fit the mold absolutely perfectly, because of differing situations, experiences, etc.

INTPs don't have a very strong connection with nature, not by default. If there is any, it is very particular and limited (Si). It will be a type of nostalgia for familiar places, perhaps where, accidentally, they had positive experienced or just lack of negative experiences. Or a smell that used to exist in their old home or neighborhood. But it's on a *trigger* basis. Something familiar sets it off, and suddenly the INTP feels at home in their environment, but otherwise they don't have a connection to surroundings.

That's interesting, what leads you to say that most INTPs only experience connections with nature through nostalgia, as opposed to, say, fascination due to its workings (and analyzing those workings, which seems very INTP to me)?

 

[Auburn]

I can see how it's not very INTP-like to have that connection, but as I said in another thread, I have found connections to myself in almost every introverted MBTI category, INFJ especially. INTP always fits me better in the end, though, and every test I've taken (and I've taken quite a few for the most definite results possible) has labeled me an INTP. I doubt one can fit the mold absolutely perfectly, because of differing situations, experiences, etc.

Correct. You'll generally find yourself relating to bits and pieces of lots of different profiles because the profiles aren't really the core of personality, but lists of common 'symptoms' of the personality. For example, in medicine, an upset stomach can be a symptom of hundreds of conditions. Likewise something as broad as shyness can be a symptom of many types (even some versions of extroverted types).

The Myers-Briggs model was formed as a (poor) practical application of Jung's (more rich) Cognitive Functions model. It is essentially a condensed form of the theory that makes it easier to market as a career assessment - and providing "instant insight" into your psyche. Really, it's part of the American culture of wanting instant results.

I vs E is something that most people can understand. As with the rest of the four dichotomies. Myers over-stereotyped Jung's work for the general populace, but that really isn't how the psyche works. The four dichotomies (I vs E, N vs S, T vs F, J vs P) don't even exist in reality. Those concepts do exist, but they are not pivoted against each other in a way that one is either one or the other. They are attributes. Attributes of the real processes.

The real psychology of Types is much more complex and takes serious study to understand. Not just a 5 minute crash course. Carl Jung never made a quicky questionaire. He understood Type was much too complex to measure with a simple 50 answer quiz, and to try to do so is sincerely quite absurd. Instead, he himself (as a psychiatrist with decades of experience with people) would assess his patients, their personality and a whole lot more.

The irony is that most of us (myself included) would not have even grown an interest in Type theory were it not for the MBTI's popularization of Jung's work. But since the MBTI is only a "face" of the theory, it lacks depth and as you've already seen, leaves many questions dissatisfied. That doesn't mean there aren't answers though, but those limits are only surpassed by weening off Myer's model and studying Jung's model. =p

Believe me, the rabbit hole goes so much deeper, into much more awesomeness. Err, for the record, the acronyms/faces MBTI gives, and the 16 Jungian psyches underneath:

INTP = TiNe
ISTP = TiSe
INFP = FiNe
ISFP = FiSe
INFJ = NiFe
INTJ = NiTe
ISFJ = SiFe
ISTJ = SiTe

ENFJ = FeNi
ESFJ = FeSi
ENTJ = TeNi
ESTJ = TeSi
ESTP = SeTi
ESFP = SeFi
ENTP = NeTi
ENFP = NeFi
​

You'll see me use those nicks a lot of the time instead, since I prefer to use function-theory over Myers theory. Learn the functions! \o/ Join the revolution! *cough* >.> ...er, got carried away.
Anyhow, here's a place to start: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=11697

And much more here:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6602

That's interesting, what leads you to say that most INTPs only experience connections with nature through nostalgia, as opposed to, say, fascination due to its workings (and analyzing those workings, which seems very INTP to me)?

Because INTPs have Si as their concrete perception function, which isn't a proactive process. Their proactive sensory process is Ne, which is a proxy/abstract perception of reality that rarely sees it for what it is, but instead for what it eludes to. So they don't actively engage with reality, but instead an ever evolving hypothetical of it -- feeding the disconnected/impersonal process of Ti.

In contrast, types like TiSe or NiFe have a proactive sensory process (Se) which takes in reality richly, literally, sensually, and interacts with that reality -- while slowly creating an abstract web of interconnections that those real moments have, into Ni.

 

[skip]

Backpacking is a wonderful break from the stupidity of the SJ world. I find fellow hikers to be more "real" and down to earth, if you'll pardon the cliches. I like to hike for months at a time through forests and wilderness areas. It's extended down time: having nothing to do but walk and think is glorious. No schedules, no one to answer to yet there is as much challenge and learning as you want. With a little preparation you can make it up as you go, it's very P that way. Each day is different and the scenery is incredible. This is a truly remarkable planet and I'm glad I've been able to see and experience some of our country's diversity and beauty first-hand.

 

[LcDel]

Backpacking is a wonderful break from the stupidity of the SJ world. I find fellow hikers to be more "real" and down to earth, if you'll pardon the cliches. I like to hike for months at a time through forests and wilderness areas. It's extended down time: having nothing to do but walk and think is glorious. No schedules, no one to answer to yet there is as much challenge and learning as you want. With a little preparation you can make it up as you go, it's very P that way. Each day is different and the scenery is incredible. This is a truly remarkable planet and I'm glad I've been able to see and experience some of our country's diversity and beauty first-hand.

That sounds wonderful. I hope very much that I'll be able to have experiences like that someday after I graduate, and can find friends who enjoy hiking as much as I do and are willing to go off-path. Unfortunately I don't live close to any mountains, so I'm envious. I may go hiking as a day trip in Italy this summer, though; that's something.
I agree that hiking is great for thinking, and the spontaneity makes it exciting.

 

[A22]

I like learning more about nature and how it works. From physics to biology. I love how atoms combine and organism organize. Particularly the simplest ones.

I enjoy landscapes and the calmness and simplicity of nature. I also like to observe birds and other animal's behavior. It makes me enjoy the moment, think about life in a good way... I just feel good.

I'm a observer, though, I don't like pets nor big animals that interact with me. They are dirty and usually lick or bite.

 

[skip]

Unfortunately I don't live close to any mountains, so I'm envious.

The A.T. goes through your state!

 

[LcDel]

The A.T. goes through your state!

It does, but I don't live close enough to convince my parents to drive me there. I don't get my permit until July. If I end up going to Vermont or somewhere else mountainous for college, though, I'm set.

 

[crippli]

I don't have a deep love for nature. It's more like it's fine to give it a light kiss, on the lips. But it won't mean anything, except, except that I generally like it. But may just as well give it a slap, and show my disapproval. There is a lot imho that does not evolve very elegantly, and could do with modification. In general I am impressed though.

Nature is a prison, as solid as they come. I hesitate to make my self too comfortable. It feels deceptive. Kinda like amorous sadism. Wants you to love it, but except for the production of biomass, it doesn't care. Only wants your body.

But nature does move in an, to me, ancient process, that calms me down. Perhaps not normally. It'd be easier if drugged, and the place is really nice, like a sunset on a height. And a lack of buzzing people to disrupt. Then one can perhaps feel the beast, and connect.

 

[Architect]

I love nature and used to hike in the Sierras when I was younger. I have always spent my weekends going on long hikes and walks by the ocean and woods, even when I lived in big cities I would always find a natural place to walk and think (even in Tokyo).

As I'm older I prefer meeting nature in a civilized way. I still just use a tent to save money, but I wouldn't mind getting a camper to travel in style.

 

[Brontosaurie]

transhumanism is natural

end of discussion

 

[redbaron]

I'd consider myself as having a deep love for nature as well.

For me it really has nothing to do with the processes present in nature. While as complex if not more so, I don't find the same interest in biology and biochemistry as I do in physics. Maybe because physics allows for more theoretical freedom? Or maybe that's because of an increased knowledge in the field.

In any case, I enjoy nothing more than starting my day by walking around barefoot outside. I go barefoot as often as possible. I read, eat and sometimes sleep outside for the sake of it.

I couldn't really explain how, but I confess a deep love for all things natural also.

I don't think there's a necessarily spiritual side to it, but I definitely feel as though it is much more energizing to spend more time among trees and sky than wood and plaster.

Maybe someone else can shed some light on this, as I've never really though about it that much. I enjoy outdoors, what more can I say?

Maybe we're the crazy ones OP?