Productivity - intp = derp

[Inceptacon]

Ok so I've got a new semester coming up in about 10 days. I need, for a great many reasons including my own freaking health..... to become more efficient and proactive with my time. My plan so far is to determinismly wake around 6 and get to sleep by 11 max as often as possible. I know us INTP's like making all these grand plans and ambitions and they never become sweet reality, but this is my rast stand. i need this. MUST HARNESS INTELECT! Prease Hep me!!!!

 

[Words]

How do you not feel groggy with 7 hours of sleep? Why not 6am and 9pm? That's what I usually do. And to assist you with being productive, if you're anything like me and hates to be "irrational", then simply label yourself "irrational" when your not doing your schoolwork early on.

Here's a good motto:

"If I don't have to do it, I won't. But if i have to do it, I make it quick."

 

[intpz]

Actually it's irrational to label yourself irrational when you're not being irrational: why do it as early as possible, why not do it later?

As for productivity, it's good as long as the subject's interesting. If not, it's not. Since t he subjects at school suck around here, I've never learned school stuff. Graduated not long ago. Interestingly my marks were ranging from 1 to 10 in subjects, depending on how much I already knew about it (or was interesting about it).

 

[Words]

Actually it's irrational to label yourself irrational when you're not being irrational: why do it as early as possible, why not do it later?

Time-complexity variable. The longer you wait, the more likely that factors will pop out impeding your progress. If you did it earlier where there are less variables, then the more likely that the goal is achieved.

There is also false estimation. If you falsely estimate and are unaware of how much work/time is required for a particular project, then doing it "later" means not accomplishing at the given time limit.

...Actually. actually actually actually... grr. actually.

Also, I hate your title. "Strong S/F who lives in his own ignorant world"? What a load of bull.

As for productivity, it's good as long as the subject's interesting. If not, it's not. Since t he subjects at school suck around here, I've never learned school stuff. Graduated not long ago. Interestingly my marks were ranging from 1 to 10 in subjects, depending on how much I already knew about it (or was interesting about it).

I find ALL subjects to be interesting, as long as it has predominantly "Technical/Systematical" and "Abstract/Idea" elements. From there, it's all about working with those elements. For me, it's not about the type of specific. Cat vs. Dog does not make any different to me. It's about the nature of the information. How abstract and technical it is. Cat vs. Biology.

 

[Anarkandi]

A good key when fighting procrastination, which I guess is a strong swamp for INTP's who have been killed by a boring school system and little external stimulation, is to realise procrastination is a defensive strategy we use to fight people who we feel try to control us. By thinking "I'll do it later" we're actually taking power over people/objects from the outside such as schoolwork or other people's expectations on us. If we'd just say "Nope, won't do that." - it wouldn't be as effective.

So what we need is not more external control or to give ourselves up even more to them, but to take control over them. This can be done in numerous ways, my way is that I am controlled by other people's expectations, but I constantly try to TOP them. I want to leave people surprised, I don't want to just mindlessly do what I'm told. I want to exceed their expectations and as such, I can feel more powerful than them, as I am more productive.

I'd say a way is to do what others tell you in a way that distinguishes you from them. You're not doing as they say, you do it in your own way creatively.

And another way is to do it for yourself, and not for anybody else. Ask yourself what you want to do and tell yourself you're not doing it for anybody else, but for your own sake.

 

[intpz]

Time-complexity variable. The longer you wait, the more likely that factors will pop out impeding your progress. If you did it earlier where there are less variables, then the more likely that the goal is achieved.

There is also false estimation. If you falsely estimate and are unaware of how much work/time is required for a particular project, then doing it "later" means not accomplishing at the given time limit.

...Actually. actually actually actually... grr. actually.

Also, I hate your title. "Strong S/F who lives in his own ignorant world"? What a load of bull.



I find ALL subjects to be interesting, as long as it has predominantly "Technical/Systematical" and "Abstract/Idea" elements. From there, it's all about working with those elements. For me, it's not about the type of specific. Cat vs. Dog does not make any different to me. It's about the nature of the information. How abstract and technical it is. Cat vs. Biology.

Somebody doesn't like to be challenged about his mindsets? Are you and F?

Actually (actually!), no. That's not more likely, you can wait half a day to do your math homework, but that doesn't mean that you won't do it, unless your grandmother dies. But in that case, you can legally skip school. You can always choose what you do, go out, get drunk, get high, watch a movie, do your homework - it isn't dependent on the time of day. You can choose what you do and do it. Therefore, the variables aren't valid here, unless you want them to be... Which is quite hypocritical.

As for the false estimation... Who said you have to do it the last minute? We're talking about NOT having to do it at the beginning or any close to it. If you're gonna do it the last minute then yes, that can be true. Otherwise - that's a false presumption.

That's cool, I don't care that you hate it. Although it makes me think even more that you might be an F instead of a T.

It's ignorant to say that - all subjects are interesting. That's not true and you know it. Stop lying to yourself.

So what we need is not more external control or to give ourselves up even more to them, but to take control over them. This can be done in numerous ways, my way is that I am controlled by other people's expectations, but I constantly try to TOP them. I want to leave people surprised, I don't want to just mindlessly do what I'm told. I want to exceed their expectations and as such, I can feel more powerful than them, as I am more productive.

I'd say a way is to do what others tell you in a way that distinguishes you from them. You're not doing as they say, you do it in your own way creatively.

And another way is to do it for yourself, and not for anybody else. Ask yourself what you want to do and tell yourself you're not doing it for anybody else, but for your own sake.

I don't agree that topping their expectations is control. I think it's closer to being a bigger lackey: if you do it for them, and you top their expectations, you make them happy, and being in control, as you both do what you're told, and you do it better than expected. That's not being in control, that's doing what you're told + overtime (which, later, is expected from you).

The last part isn't quite right as well. You can ask yourself, that's cool, but telling yourself that you do it for yourself when you're doing it for your boss... That's not cool, that's called "lying to yourself." Sure you can argue that you do it to get a paycheck, but in the end, you're still doing it for your boss, you won't use that work, you won't own it, you are just the worker who completes it for someone else.

 

[Words]

Somebody doesn't like to be challenged about his mindsets? Are you and F?

As much as I get mad at myself for being stupid, I get mad at others for being stupid. Yes, I think you're being stupid.

Actually (actually!), no. That's not more likely, you can wait half a day to do your math homework, but that doesn't mean that you won't do it, unless your grandmother dies. But in that case, you can legally skip school.

How can you not come up with infinitely more intersecting hindrances than this? And who said this is limited to hw? You wait half a day, and your assigned more hw/projects. You wait half a day, and you're forced to participate a gathering. You wait half a day, and you unknowingly lose access to a needed public machine. You wait half a day, you unknowingly lose access to a needed file. As t=time increases, uncertainty increases. Rationality.

..Actually.

You can always choose what you do, go out, get drunk, get high, watch a movie, do your homework - it isn't dependent on the time of day. You can choose what you do and do it. Therefore, the variables aren't valid here, unless you want them to be... Which is quite hypocritical.

...are you serious? You can do anything regardless of time..? really?

As for the false estimation... Who said you have to do it the last minute?

No one.

We're talking about NOT having to do it at the beginning or any close to it. If you're gonna do it the last minute then yes, that can be true. Otherwise - that's a false presumption.

Let's say it takes 4 hours to finish something, and you then estimate that it will take 3 hours. Let's do the math, k? Hm... 4 - 3 = 1 hour. Oh no! you need one more hour.

Important details: It's due 8pm and the time is 4pm, and you get to choose to either do it at 4pm or 5pm.

That's cool, I don't care that you hate it. Although it makes me think even more that you might be an F instead of a T.

Man, I hate it because it's irrational. Having strong S and F does not make one "live in hir ignorant world."

It's ignorant to say that - all subjects are interesting. That's not true and you know it. Stop lying to yourself.

What is truly ignorant is rejecting someone's idea/experiences by simply appealing to statements such as "You know it" and "Stop lying to yourself."

 

[Coolydudey]

Man, I hate it because it's irrational. Having strong S and F does not make one "live in hir ignorant world.

@Words, I agree with everything else you said but this. He phrased it: "by a strong S/F who lives in their own ignorant world", meaning he assumed that they are strong S/F and also assumed that they live in their own ignorant world. He didn't say the first implies the second (although in my opinion, it does a lot of the time). He may have meant it that way of course, in which case it's a sweeping generalisation leading to pointless and erroneous conclusions.

 

[redbaron]

Actually (actually!), no. That's not more likely, you can wait half a day to do your math homework, but that doesn't mean that you won't do it, unless your grandmother dies.

In which case the proposition is correct. By delaying the completion of the work, an unexpected variable has interfered with your ability to complete it in the due time.

It's ignorant to say that - all subjects are interesting. That's not true and you know it. Stop lying to yourself.

Of course, it's not ignorant to assume that some subjects cannot be interesting at all!

That's cool, I don't care that you hate it. Although it makes me think even more that you might be an F instead of a T.

Are you trolling or are you just THAT stupid?

I don't agree that topping their expectations is control. I think it's closer to being a bigger lackey: if you do it for them, and you top their expectations, you make them happy, and being in control, as you both do what you're told, and you do it better than expected. That's not being in control, that's doing what you're told + overtime (which, later, is expected from you).

Why is it a bad thing that exceeding expectation makes someone else happy? If it involves mutual benefit for both parties, I fail to see how co-operation is a bad thing. It's a win-win. I find it rather sad that you aren't able to see this.

Non-conformism simply for its own sake is cute up to the age of oh, say 15?. It wears thin afterwards.

The last part isn't quite right as well. You can ask yourself, that's cool, but telling yourself that you do it for yourself when you're doing it for your boss... That's not cool, that's called "lying to yourself." Sure you can argue that you do it to get a paycheck, but in the end, you're still doing it for your boss, you won't use that work, you won't own it, you are just the worker who completes it for someone else.

No. There are mature and effective ways to deal with issues like this. Simply not doing work or doing poor quality work is the quickest way to get 'managed out' of a job. This is why 90% of people in the workplace end up going nowhere.

I do the work I'm given for both myself and my boss. Some of it is done his way, some of it my way. It's called compromising. Something that if done correctly, is positive and a learning process.

 

[intpz]

How can you not come up with infinitely more intersecting hindrances than this? And who said this is limited to hw? You wait half a day, and your assigned more hw/projects. You wait half a day, and you're forced to participate a gathering. You wait half a day, and you unknowingly lose access to a needed public machine. You wait half a day, you unknowingly lose access to a needed file. As t=time increases, uncertainty increases. Rationality.

How can you be assigned more projects? The breaks are 10 minutes each, minus ~5min to get around due to slow-ass assholes who aren't in a hurry. One break's 20 minutes for students to eat. Unless every break is half an hour, you don't get to your projects during breaks, which means you don't get assigned more projects. And besides - ain't it homework? HOMEwork?

...forced to participate in a gathering? You're never forced to do anything, you always choose what to do. Everybody understands when you say that you have homework or to do work, because it's important. If they don't, you shouldn't be talking to them in the first place.

You have Internet connection, don't ya? Most people do. You don't need access to a public machine.

To a needed file? No idea what you might mean by that.

...are you serious? You can do anything regardless of time..? really?

You have 24 hours at your disposal. You can do whatever you choose to do during that time. Every day, if that's the correct expression here. - Yes, really.

No one.

Then why did you implied it? Rhetorical(!).

Let's say it takes 4 hours to finish something, and you then estimate that it will take 3 hours. Let's do the math, k? Hm... 4 - 3 = 1 hour. Oh no! you need one more hour.

Important details: It's due 8pm and the time is 4pm, and you get to choose to either do it at 4pm or 5pm.

If that's your estimation, this IS a last-minute choice...

What is truly ignorant is rejecting someone's idea/experiences by simply appealing to statements such as "You know it" and "Stop lying to yourself."

Are you saying that it's ignorant to say that God doesn't exist and that Religion is causing a lot of anger, which lead to war many times in the history? Or that jumping in front of a train is stupid because you end your life?

Is it ignorant to reject an idea that someone has because you had different experience, observations and conclusions?

He phrased it: "by a strong S/F who lives in their own ignorant world", meaning he assumed that they are strong S/F and also assumed that they live in their own ignorant world. He didn't say the first implies the second (although in my opinion, it does a lot of the time).

Thanks for saving me a minute.

 

[intpz]

In which case the proposition is correct. By delaying the completion of the work, an unexpected variable has interfered with your ability to complete it in the due time.

In a "disaster" scenario, you can legally skip school/university/work for a couple days, depending on the impact, therefore, it's not a valid counter-argument.

Of course, it's not ignorant to assume that some subjects cannot be interesting at all!

Who said that some subjects cannot be interesting? I'm saying that EVERYTHING cannot be interesting to one person.

Are you trolling or are you just THAT stupid?

That was based on the assumption that he didn't misinterpret what I wrote, which was later explained by the guy with portal's avatar.

Why is it a bad thing that exceeding expectation makes someone else happy? If it involves mutual benefit for both parties, I fail to see how co-operation is a bad thing. It's a win-win. I find it rather sad that you aren't able to see this.

Who said it's a bad thing? Who said cooperation is a bad thing? We're talking about controlling and being controlled, not about that exceeding expectations or making someone else happy is a good or a bad thing...

No. There are mature and effective ways to deal with issues like this. Simply not doing work or doing poor quality work is the quickest way to get 'managed out' of a job. This is why 90% of people in the workplace end up going nowhere.

Who said anything about doing poor quality work or not doing it? We're talking about his solution, nobody's saying that you should do poor quality work or refuse to work. A lot of people have jobs they hate, they don't refuse to do their job (unless their boss is an asshole and orders them to do a lot of extra stuff that they shouldn't be doing, though most people deal with that as well). And actually a lot of people aren't going nowhere because they can't manage to do it, not because they aren't doing their best. And most people aren't doing their best because they aren't motivated enough or they are too lazy because of other reasons - in my experience, a lot of people simply don't want to do anything, just get drunk, fuck and get high. Here at least, anyway.

If I'm the guy who has to carry boxes all day for $10 an hour, I can hire a Mexican (stereotype, just an example) for $2 an hour to do it for me, while I'd be doing something else. If I were in data entry and my goal was 2000 entries per month, I could do that in a day of hard work and have the rest of the time for myself, or come in for an hour for a month and go home for the other 7 hours. If I were to create a site design and I was shown how the client wants it, I can just do it and get his money, instead of working extra 4 hours a day to add a bunch of fancy shit.

If you have a shitty job, chances are you won't get nowhere even if you do overtime. Instead, you will be used because your boss will get used to you doing more than you're supposed to. Sure, in 10 years, after the boss would get a promotion, you might get his place if you weren't too old... But that's a maybe and 10 years of slavery isn't worth it.

I do the work I'm given for both myself and my boss. Some of it is done his way, some of it my way. It's called compromising. Something that if done correctly, is positive and a learning process.

Compromising... Okay, so what's the problem here? Have I said something about compromising being bad and didn't know it?

Depends on what you mean correctly: if you mean using a conventional way when there's a new way (say other software), then it's not. If you mean quality, then I agree.

 

[Words]

@Words, I agree with everything else you said but this. He phrased it: "by a strong S/F who lives in their own ignorant world", meaning he assumed that they are strong S/F and also assumed that they live in their own ignorant world. He didn't say the first implies the second (although in my opinion, it does a lot of the time). He may have meant it that way of course, in which case it's a sweeping generalisation leading to pointless and erroneous conclusions.

Still, there was no need to isolate S/F types. He could have ended it with "ignorant people" including INTPs. All types can be "ignorant", children are "ignorant." and "Ignorant" is such an egocentric word. What is "ignorant"? Isn't there so much to learn from S/F types as well? Regardless of correlation and type, we're talking about individuals here.

Though, Indeed, he didn't imply causation. But his recent displays of irrationality made me think that he did.


@intpz

I will not be participating in this incredibly boring discussion any longer, nor is it likely that I will try to reason with you again.

 

[intpz]

Still, there was no need to isolate S/F types. He could have ended it with "ignorant people" including INTPs. All types can be "ignorant", children are "ignorant." and "Ignorant" is such an egocentric word. What is "ignorant"? Isn't there so much to learn from S/F types as well? Regardless of correlation and type, we're talking about individuals here.

Though, Indeed, he didn't imply causation. But his recent displays of irrationality made me think that he did.

I see a big difference between "can be" and "mostly are."

It is an egocentric word in a way: you want people to acknowledge your ideas in addition to their own ideas.

So are you an SF, is that why you're so annoyed by it?

I will not be participating in this incredibly boring discussion any longer, nor is it likely that I will try to reason with you again.

I'm delighted. When somebody says that, most likely they don't have good enough arguments, and from what I've seen, you just keep repeating the same in other words, and/or implying something I didn't say and commenting on that.

 

[Coolydudey]

I see a big difference between "can be" and "mostly are."

It is an egocentric word in a way: you want people to acknowledge your ideas in addition to their own ideas.

So are you an SF, is that why you're so annoyed by it?



I'm delighted. When somebody says that, most likely they don't have good enough arguments, and from what I've seen, you just keep repeating the same in other words, and/or implying something I didn't say and commenting on that.

Is that why you are an SF...: wtf? ?!? Can he not sisagree with you and not be some other type?

He also has fine and sound arguments

 

[intpz]

Sure he can, that doesn't he are though, same as it doesn't me he aren't.

Well to me arguments saying "I'm making myself believe irrational shit to be rational" doesn't sound "fine."

 

[Coolydudey]

It isn't fine, but his arguments are fine (in my opinion)

 

[intpz]

I don't see it that way. I see only rationality as fine, not rationality through irrationality...

 

[Coolydudey]

I'm saying that his argument that you are mistaking irrational "shit" for rational "shit" is true (I agree with his supporting evidence), and that you'd better sort out what is rational and what isn't.
Btw, are u from Russia?

 

[intpz]

I'm saying that his argument that you are mistaking irrational "shit" for rational "shit" is true (I agree with his supporting evidence), and that you'd better sort out what is rational and what isn't.
Btw, are u from Russia?

Of course it's rational if you don't agree with the "you choose what you do" argument. But if you do agree with this one, it is rational.

Why are you asking?

 

[Coolydudey]

You've used rational twice... Correct your spelling.

Anyway, that which is rational is that which is supported by proof as being true, and therefore something is either rational or irrational, regardless of what arguments someone accepts and what they believe in.

So you are from Russia... I just guessed from your posts, and wanted to check.

 

[Etheri]

Anyway, that which is rational is that which is supported by proof as being true, and therefore something is either rational or irrational, regardless of what arguments someone accepts and what they believe in.

If we limit rational to that which is supported by proof in a mathematical and strict sense, then we would only have maths. Since all sciences depend on induction rather than deduction, science is no longer rational, nor is anything applied to 'reality'. Furthermore, maths is only rational once you accept the axiomes your maths require, thus dependant on what someone accepts and believes in. Rationality is subjective and depending on the user, despite being more strict than what we'd consider irrational.

I do agree with everything else you said, in favour of Words' arguments.

 

[intpz]

You've used rational twice... Correct your spelling.

Anyway, that which is rational is that which is supported by proof as being true, and therefore something is either rational or irrational, regardless of what arguments someone accepts and what they believe in.

So you are from Russia... I just guessed from your posts, and wanted to check.

Definition's a bit different: "Consistent with or based on or using reason."

As a matter of fact I'm not. How did you... Guessed?

 

[pjoa09]

@intpz

Regarding the "INTPs are different ... yada yada " I can understand where everyone else is coming from. You are clearly stereotyping personalities based on your negative experiences of one person or many people that you have communicated with personally. It is inherently unjustified to presume every human who has S/F or S&F preferences to consider an INTP as 'mentals' or automatically cast us out of their understand of 'normal people'. Perhaps even treat us in a strange manner. Most of my friends have feeling and sensory preferences. They do not treat me in any other manner than they treat their other 'S/F' friends.

Regarding work ethic, just c'mon. Give in. If you think procrastination is a great work ethic then please refer to yourself. I can easily understand from my history that any form of procrastination is never healthy. Ass scraping never works. You know it. There is nothing like 'do it later' that says 'get screwed at deadline' better.

Words also claimed "I find ALL subjects to be interesting, as long as it has predominantly "Technical/Systematical" and "Abstract/Idea" elements." I don't think he is lying. It's his opinion and that restriction only accepts math orientated sciences.

 

[Coolydudey]

If we limit rational to that which is supported by proof in a mathematical and strict sense, then we would only have maths. Since all sciences depend on induction rather than deduction, science is no longer rational, nor is anything applied to 'reality'. Furthermore, maths is only rational once you accept the axiomes your maths require, thus dependant on what someone accepts and believes in. Rationality is subjective and depending on the user, despite being more strict than what we'd consider irrational.

I do agree with everything else you said, in favour of Words' arguments.

I will start from intpz's definition of rational: "that which is supported by reason". Reason is logic, and if logic supports something it means it is supported by a step-by-step argument involving no logical fallacies. This is proof.
So that which is rational is that which is supported by proof. And who said proof only exists in maths?
Going back to science: in science, we assume certain things to say "physics holds in reality" or whatever it is that you wish. We assume that the world is as we observe it to be, that there exist laws to describe it, and that we can assume a law true if it is found accurate in practice. These are in effect axioms. But to say "physics holds in reality" without stating you accept these axioms is untrue and illogical. We cannot be sure of these axioms, and therefore physics may not hold in reality. Science isn't irrational, just that to say it definitely holds in reality is irrational.

 

[intpz]

@intpz

Regarding the "INTPs are different ... yada yada " I can understand where everyone else is coming from. You are clearly stereotyping personalities based on your negative experiences of one person or many people that you have communicated with personally. It is inherently unjustified to presume every human who has S/F or S&F preferences to consider an INTP as 'mentals' or automatically cast us out of their understand of 'normal people'. Perhaps even treat us in a strange manner. Most of my friends have feeling and sensory preferences. They do not treat me in any other manner than they treat their other 'S/F' friends.

Regarding work ethic, just c'mon. Give in. If you think procrastination is a great work ethic then please refer to yourself. I can easily understand from my history that any form of procrastination is never healthy. Ass scraping never works. You know it. There is nothing like 'do it later' that says 'get screwed at deadline' better.

Words also claimed "I find ALL subjects to be interesting, as long as it has predominantly "Technical/Systematical" and "Abstract/Idea" elements." I don't think he is lying. It's his opinion and that restriction only accepts math orientated sciences.

Once again, I am saying "THOSE" who are living in their ignorant world. Why do people skip half the posts before posting such things...

Who said I think it's great? I said that I think that there's no difference between waking up and taking maths book instantly, or waiting 'till the evening until you've estimated time + some (little) extra time in case you're wrong.

Ummm... Math-oriented sciences? There's not too much abstraction in a big part of maths. Using a defined and strict formula to calculate an equation isn't abstract. It can be abstract in a way if you are checking if your theory could be valid about space or whatever.

If we use that limitation of his, having in mind his logic for a way to being rational through being irrational, of course we might say that he's limitations might be much more strict than he would've meant, which could comply with the idea that he does like everything. However, there are a lot of ways to work on a systematical, technical, abstract and idea elements, and I know the he does not like all of them.

I will start from intpz's definition of rational: "that which is supported by reason". Reason is logic, and if logic supports something it means it is supported by a step-by-step argument involving no logical fallacies. This is proof.
So that which is rational is that which is supported by proof. And who said proof only exists in maths?
Going back to science: in science, we assume certain things to say "physics holds in reality" or whatever it is that you wish. We assume that the world is as we observe it to be, that there exist laws to describe it, and that we can assume a law true if it is found accurate in practice. These are in effect axioms. But to say "physics holds in reality" without stating you accept these axioms is untrue and illogical. We cannot be sure of these axioms, and therefore physics may not hold in reality. Science isn't irrational, just that to say it definitely holds in reality is irrational.

Okay, I don't know what you wanted to say by the first 2 columns, but I have a feeling that you misinterpreted something/made up something that you thought was implicit...

 

[redbaron]

n a "disaster" scenario, you can legally skip school/university/work for a couple days, depending on the impact, therefore, it's not a valid counter-argument.

No. There are more obligations in life than school, university and work. And no, some of them don't go away and can't simply be postponed because of your own personal disasters.

Who said that some subjects cannot be interesting? I'm saying that EVERYTHING cannot be interesting to one person.

This is your original post.

It's ignorant to say that - all subjects are interesting. That's not true and you know it. Stop lying to yourself.

I don't see any mention of interest relative to individuals, only that quite literally - not all subjects are interesting.

Who said it's a bad thing? Who said cooperation is a bad thing? We're talking about controlling and being controlled, not about that exceeding expectations or making someone else happy is a good or a bad thing...

You did in your own post.

I don't agree that topping their expectations is control. I think it's closer to being a bigger lackey: if you do it for them, and you top their expectations, you make them happy, and being in control, as you both do what you're told, and you do it better than expected. That's not being in control, that's doing what you're told + overtime (which, later, is expected from you).

This statement is wrong in the first place, as already covered by my first response.

What were you implying then by calling it, 'being a bigger lackey?' to exceed expectations? Calling someone a 'lackey' is generally an insult to someone's intelligence.

You also said that topping their expectation 'makes them happy, and being in control'. In reality, the inverse happens (regarding control). They are of course, happy that you're achieving good results. They don't gain more control however. You, the one who is achieving above expectations, gains more control. If you're going above expectation, and achieving results that other people are either unable or unwilling to achieve, you become a valuable asset.

You put yourself in line to compromise for your own benefit. In a work setting it can be anything. A pay rise, greater break privileges, the go-ahead to pursue some of your own goals and ideas. Since you haven't worked before, and the general attitude I receive from your posts is that of a sarcastic and cynical teenager, I wouldn't expect you to understand the benefits of actually applying your intelligence (which I have no doubt is great, it's just your attitude that sucks).

Basically here's what I'm saying.

Your attitude is as common as they come. You are like every other common person in an underpaid (by their own reckoning, of course) and unfulfilling job.

The 'me vs. 'every authority figure I come across' attitude is honestly pathetic.

If I'm the guy who has to carry boxes all day for $10 an hour, I can hire a Mexican (stereotype, just an example) for $2 an hour to do it for me, while I'd be doing something else. If I were in data entry and my goal was 2000 entries per month, I could do that in a day of hard work and have the rest of the time for myself, or come in for an hour for a month and go home for the other 7 hours. If I were to create a site design and I was shown how the client wants it, I can just do it and get his money, instead of working extra 4 hours a day to add a bunch of fancy shit.

If you have a shitty job, chances are you won't get nowhere even if you do overtime. Instead, you will be used because your boss will get used to you doing more than you're supposed to. Sure, in 10 years, after the boss would get a promotion, you might get his place if you weren't too old... But that's a maybe and 10 years of slavery isn't worth it.

How sad that you've taken a lazy, defeatist attitude towards work and life before even being out of school.

Can't be bothered responding to the rest of your idiocy. Not worth the time really so I'll cut this post short here. Continue the attempts to rationalize your emotional immaturity and shitty attitude all you want, I won't be reading or responding.

 

[intpz]

No. There are more obligations in life than school, university and work. And no, some of them don't go away and can't simply be postponed because of your own personal disasters.

Like what?

This is your original post.

I know, why am I reading this again?

I don't see any mention of interest relative to individuals, only that quite literally - not all subjects are interesting.

It was implicit, as I was talking about what he said about himself. He didn't say "everything is interesting to someone," did he?

You did in your own post.

Where's that?

You also said that topping their expectation 'makes them happy, and being in control'. In reality, the inverse happens (regarding control). They are of course, happy that you're achieving good results. They don't gain more control however. You, the one who is achieving above expectations, gains more control. If you're going above expectation, and achieving results that other people are either unable or unwilling to achieve, you become a valuable asset.

You are a valuable asset, that still doesn't mean that you are in control. You are still being controlled PLUS expected more of than of other workers, which gives them more control over you. If you from time to time don't do what's expected (which later becomes more than asked), and you don't get fired, then you are in control from time to time. If you ask for a raise and you get it, and if you ask to go home after your work is finished or work from home, then you're in control.

You put yourself in line to compromise for your own benefit. In a work setting it can be anything. A pay rise, greater break privileges, the go-ahead to pursue some of your own goals and ideas. Since you haven't worked before, and the general attitude I receive from your posts is that of a sarcastic and cynical teenager, I wouldn't expect you to understand the benefits of actually applying your intelligence (which I have no doubt is great, it's just your attitude that sucks).

Well to begin with, I'm not a teenager. And you don't know if I have worked.

Your attitude is as common as they come. You are like every other common person in an underpaid (by their own reckoning, of course) and unfulfilling job.

Why necessarily by their own reckoning? Do you think that someone is wrong by saying that working at a construction site 12 hours a day for $300 is underpaid? What about programming job, 10 hours a day, $400 a month - wouldn't that be underpaid? And these are real-life examples of salary and working conditions.

The 'me vs. 'every authority figure I come across' attitude is honestly pathetic.

Once again - why every authority figure? If you get a good boss, why not respect him? If you get a good teacher, why not respect him?

How sad that you've taken a lazy, defeatist attitude towards work and life before even being out of school.

How sad is that you know if I've graduated from school better than me. I must be tripping and skipping school...

Can't be bothered responding to the rest of your idiocy. Not worth the time really so I'll cut this post short here. Continue the attempts to rationalize your emotional immaturity and shitty attitude all you want, I won't be reading or responding.

I wonder, what is emotional maturity then? Because generally, emotional maturity is thought to be relationship and convention. If you aren't conventional or not in a relationship, it is thought that you aren't emotionally mature. In that case, yes, I am emotionally immature, as well as many others around here.

Regarding the shitty attitude, do you mean that I don't like shitty jobs? That I think that low payment IS low payment? That I don't want to overwork? That I refuse to acknowledge rationality through irrationality? If so, I do, indeed, have a shitty attitude.

 

[pjoa09]

Once again, I am saying "THOSE" who are living in their ignorant world. Why do people skip half the posts before posting such things...

Who said I think it's great? I said that I think that there's no difference between waking up and taking maths book instantly, or waiting 'till the evening until you've estimated time + some (little) extra time in case you're wrong.

"INTPs are different. They can be mistaken for mentals by a strong S/F who lives in his own ignorant world."

I am not referring to your posts on this matter and I am expressing understanding with Words sentiments to this statement. You are taking INTPs as a whole and you are selecting a 'strong S/F' then you claim that strong 'S/F' is living 'in his own ignorant world'. You are most likely calling him ignorant in this case. So you insult a random 'strong S/F' and claim that he will consider all INTPs as 'mentals'. You don't refer to anyone in particular. In basic terms it's 'Bs are different. They can be mistaken for assholes by a C, who is a complete dick.'

I understand you are attempting to narrow it down to a certain type. Obviously you are expressing a form of hatred towards people you have met. But you attempt to generalize it. I am understanding Words sentiment towards this attempt. You could just say 'I am different. I am being mistaken for a lunatic by (whoever you hate), who is fucking ignorant.'

Ummm... Math-oriented sciences? There's not too much abstraction in a big part of maths. Using a defined and strict formula to calculate an equation isn't abstract. It can be abstract in a way if you are checking if your theory could be valid about space or whatever.

You must be confusing abstract with creative. Math is definitely abstract as you can't apply it on it's own to solve any real world problems. It needs to be applied. It is definitely systematic.

If we use that limitation of his, having in mind his logic for a way to being rational through being irrational, of course we might say that he's limitations might be much more strict than he would've meant, which could comply with the idea that he does like everything. However, there are a lot of ways to work on a systematical, technical, abstract and idea elements, and I know the he does not like all of them.

I am not so sure... are you trying to insult? In that case I see no point in arguing on this point.

 

[intpz]

"INTPs are different. They can be mistaken for mentals by a strong S/F who lives in his own ignorant world."

Highlighted the important part, which, apparently you skipped.

I am not referring to your posts on this matter and I am expressing understanding with Words sentiments to this statement. You are taking INTPs as a whole and you are selecting a 'strong S/F' then you claim that strong 'S/F' is living 'in his own ignorant world'. You are most likely calling him ignorant in this case. So you insult a random 'strong S/F' and claim that he will consider all INTPs as 'mentals'. You don't refer to anyone in particular. In basic terms it's 'Bs are different. They can be mistaken for assholes by a C, who is a complete dick.'

...and once again: I am taking INTPs as a whole, I am selecting people who have strong S/F, then I am selecting people from those who are living in their ignorant worlds...

I understand you are attempting to narrow it down to a certain type. Obviously you are expressing a form of hatred towards people you have met. But you attempt to generalize it. I am understanding Words sentiment towards this attempt. You could just say 'I am different. I am being mistaken for a lunatic by (whoever you hate), who is fucking ignorant.'

Wrong again. I am attempting to narrow the certain type to a certain kind of people.

You must be confusing abstract with creative. Math is definitely abstract as you can't apply it on it's own to solve any real world problems. It needs to be applied. It is definitely systematic.

That makes sense. I saw abstract as specifically a subject that cannot be defined too well or completely objectively, like wild theories, about the universe for example.

I am not so sure... are you trying to insult? In that case I see no point in arguing on this point.

No, I'm trying to say that one can limit a certain word to a certain extend, and so apply "everything" to correlate with his definition that isn't defined to others.

 

[Coolydudey]

Why the heck have we so badly derailed the thread? We really should stop.
To actually post something worthwhile, here are my two cents: you will only be productive if you want to be productive, and this outweighs the reasons you don't want to be productive (laziness/..).

 

[ijustprotectedmyidentity]

Ok so I've got a new semester coming up in about 10 days. I need, for a great many reasons including my own freaking health..... to become more efficient and proactive with my time. My plan so far is to determinismly wake around 6 and get to sleep by 11 max as often as possible. I know us INTP's like making all these grand plans and ambitions and they never become sweet reality, but this is my rast stand. i need this. MUST HARNESS INTELECT! Prease Hep me!!!!

heres some studying tips, make sure you spend atleast 1 hour and 30 mins reading the book of a particular class. You dont have to time yourself and be anal about it but make sure that you read the book every other day and be consistent, never waste a day by not reading the book, everyday should be spent studying the subject by reading the material.

good luck

also, stop being a try hard by waking up at 6 am, but if your an early riser morning person power to you. I personally hate waking up in the morning and find the idea unneccesary in the success of productivity

 

[Inceptacon]

Thanks ijustprotectmyidentity. Good advice. And no, I am not at all a morning person.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Given this thread, combined with your most recent thread re: harnessing your productivity, have you considered seeing a psychiatrist for a script for ADHD medication?

Not that I'm some doctor (outside of habitats, of course) pushing either pills and/or diagnoses, but it could legitimately help. Nootropics do exist, and they do work.

 

[Niclmaki]

Even deciding to be decisive about something like this is a big accomplishment.
We should probably take a break now and get back to this later.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Even deciding to be decisive about something like this is a big accomplishment.
We should probably take a break now and get back to this later.

 

[Reluctantly]

So did you reach your goal?

 

[Inceptacon]

Haha what do you think

 

[own8ge]

This thread gives me a boner.
(Is intpz banned?!)

this thread made me love intpz, he totally owns

 

[Etheri]

This thread gives me a boner.
(Is intpz banned?!)

this thread made me love intpz, he totally owns

Every time he has any arguments, he counterweights the balance of -WIN- with a personal attack to the people he's arguing with resulting in global -NEUTRAL- or even -LOSS- from my point of view. The end result is interesting stuff hidden among the mud they were throwing...

I love discussion and I don't think any of them went out of line, not even close to that. I'm simply saying that the thread lost the appeal and eloquence it had simply because they (not only intpz) attacked the people behind the arguments along with the arguments themselves.