Pros and cons of INTP friends: Any thoughts

[Pyropyro]

I've been thinking about being an INTP friend lately and gathered some info from the net and my life in general.

Anyways this is not a glorification of the INTP, I think we have gaping weaknesses like the other types (hence the Cons)

Any suggestions or new insights would be appreciated.

Pros:
1. They won't backstab you, they prefer to dissect you though (with or without your consent)
2. Can be gregarious if encouraged light-heartedly
3. Loyal if they find you worthy of being a friend
4. Open to criticism and conflict (if said criticism/conflict is based on rational grounds)
5. Loves unconditionally (accdng to data I found over the net, probably not the showy type of love but it's there nonetheless)
6. Won't aim to dominate or bully you (too much effort on their part)
7. Honest (not because of moral grounds, INTP's simply hate inaccuracies)
8. Doesn't show it/state it but will always give you a chance to redeem yourself
Will provide lots of chances for you to redeem yourself (but may not show it) but will let you go once they see you as irredeemable.
9. Accommodating and lenient to others until their standards, generosity or patience is abused

Cons:
1. They will judge you first (gather data) before finding you worthy of companionship
2. They don't mince words especially if you need it
3. Will not express emotions (but could be if you pissed them long enough, by then beware)
4. Will sometimes be at Cloud Nine
5. Finds some social activities pointless unless explained thoroughly to them
6. won't help you with buffing your ego (Find a feeler) unless it's part of their plan to help you improve
7. Will act strangely (moreso than usual) if they aim to have a "relationship upgrade" with you.
8. Will probably oblivious to your feelings unless they studied/experienced this aspect of your life

 

[Hadoblado]

I take issue with P8, bridges have been burned and any attempt to rebuild them will likely result in death by beating with said (still burning) bridge. If there is very little gain in a relationship and very large risk (see selling fake concert tickets to best friend, drugging up and shredding couch with a knife, pretending to have been beaten up by drugdealers to avoid paying rent) there is absolutely no forgiveness for you. It may take a lot to alienate an INTP as they understand actions and motives in different ways than the majority of the population (I am incredibly charitable when speculating upon other's motives), but there are thresholds that if crossed will place you irredeemably in the 'worthless person' category.

edit: other than that, I like the idea behind OP, and congrats on your to be 100th post.

 

[Pyropyro]

I take issue with P8, bridges have been burned and any attempt to rebuild them will likely result in death by beating with said (still burning) bridge. If there is very little gain in a relationship and very large risk (see selling fake concert tickets to best friend, drugging up and shredding couch with a knife, pretending to have been beaten up by drugdealers to avoid paying rent) there is absolutely no forgiveness for you. It may take a lot to alienate an INTP as they understand actions and motives in different ways than the majority of the population (I am incredibly charitable when speculating upon other's motives), but there are thresholds that if crossed will place you irredeemably in the 'worthless person' category.

edit: other than that, I like the idea behind OP, and congrats on your to be 100th post.

100th post

Thanks for the input,

Perhaps I need to tweak P8 a bit. Come to think of it, I just categorized a person in the worthless compartment lately.

 

[P.H.]

I agree, it's almost always. But when you've fucked up, you've fucked up for life.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I agree, it's almost always. But when you've fucked up, you've fucked up for life.

Without the possibility of parole.

 

[Cognisant]

Will provide lots of chances for you to redeem yourself (but may not show it) but will let you go once they see you as irredeemable.

INTPs are very lenient until that leniency is taken advantage of.
INTPs are very patient until that patience is taken advantage of.
INTPs are very generous until that generosity is taken advantage of.
Etc.

 

[GYX_Kid]

"relationship upgrade" :smiley_emoticons_mr

 

[Orja]

I question the part about honesty. Perhaps it should be changed to "geniune". We are genuine people to be sure, but we have our secrets and have no problems with lying to keep them.

Also as a Pro, we are quite flexible. Not just in the easy-going sense, but we naturally, subtly, alter ourselves to better meet the various needs of those with whom we feel close.

 

[Pyropyro]

I question the part about honesty. Perhaps it should be changed to "geniune". We are genuine people to be sure, but we have our secrets and have no problems with lying to keep them.

Also as a Pro, we are quite flexible. Not just in the easy-going sense, but we naturally, subtly, alter ourselves to better meet the various needs of those with whom we feel close.

Hmm... I'm not sure about "genuine" vs "honest" part. I think the term is more vague but I do agree that we keep secrets and would try to (uncomfortably) defend them if an unworthy person gets too close.

I'll add the flexibility aspect to the OP though.

(To Moderators) BTW is it okay for me to change the OP each time I find good stuff to add?

 

[Dapper Dan]

I question the part about honesty. Perhaps it should be changed to "geniune". We are genuine people to be sure, but we have our secrets and have no problems with lying to keep them.

I see what you're getting at. "Genuine" is close, but I think "straight-forward" works better. We either speak our mind or we don't speak. We have uncomplicated needs, and we desire uncomplicated relationships. We naturally avoid drama, as it make absolutely no sense to us.

On a separate note, I don't think the third con is quite right. Most of my emotions come out quite readily for those I'm close to. The problem is that I tend to actively bottle up things like anger, so you may not even realize that I'm angry until I blow up in your face.

 

[Reluctantly]

This was interesting. Sounds good to me, except the following.

Pros:
8. Doesn't show it/state it but will always give you a chance to redeem yourself
Will provide lots of chances for you to redeem yourself (but may not show it) but will let you go once they see you as irredeemable.

I don't think the word choice of redeem is all that appropriate; it implies they are no good, if I don't think they are.

The idea of people being seen as good or not good to other people has always been a big internal ethical dilemma for me because I can separate myself from someone, but still empathize with them regardless (where other people lose all empathy); particularly if I end up treating them as no good, due to an impulse of stress, I feel conflicted about it afterwards. This is something that I've never been able to change and yet I know that I am INTP, but that this involves Fi. And I don't really do sympathy at all; I don't like the idea of it.

Honestly, I feel like I'm not being objective, the few times this has happened; and I instinctively have a certain amount of distrust in the actions/judgments of others that feel polarizing people into good and bad is necessary to decide who should be in their lives and who should not. Seriously though, this kind of thinking is the basis for forming good and evil and the conflict that precedes its formation.

Cons:
1. They will judge you first (gather data) before finding you worthy of companionship

I don't really do this, for the record. But I do have an internal sense of whether or the person will be good or bad for me; and I will stay away or interact depending on that, without having to truly judge their person, which again, seems inherently futile.

But whatever...I've said stuff like this before and been accused of being idealist; and I get the feeling this might be something archetypal that people either feel compelled to or not. And maybe you don't and most INTPs would say they don't. I don't know, whatever. It feels necessary to at least say something here about the distinctions.

 

[Chronomar]

I actually agree with the redeem one (#8, Pro), so long as the INTP in question is not depressed/jaded at the time.

It's not like we go out of our way to help someone redeem themselves, more like we are likely to appreciate the fact that change should always be considered possible, even in humans, and even if we're not optimistic about it at all.

And, if the person in question is someone who actually made it into our good graces before fucking up, we're probably more likely to at least consider their redemption given that if they even got that far (friendship, or you know, that upgraded relationship thing), they were probably subjected to a detailed analysis and background check, and who's lazy enough not to want to start that process again with someone new? We are.

 

[Nibbler]

4. Open to criticism and conflict (if said criticism/conflict is based on rational grounds)

Yes, absolutely. I have noticed that in me. People who have my utmost respect can mop the floor with me in corrections. Because I trust their thought processes.

If I have previously thought someone was a complete fucking idiot, I don't care if they are right, I don't want to hear their criticism. I will go find someone I respect and get them to criticize me for it so it comes from "reputable sources".

As far as the redemption topic goes. I agree with the general gist. If the person is genuinely trying or their transgressions don't come from a manipulative or otherwise negligent place (such as mental laziness), I will let people slide until they can get it right.

I see people who keep screwing up (again, through no perceived negligent intentions) as toddlers crawling all over you, scratching and pulling. They mean nothing by it. They're just doing what toddlers do.

 

[Pyropyro]

"relationship upgrade" :smiley_emoticons_mr

Ah if only I could walk in front of a girl and say "Hey care to join in my study on Human Relationships? I need more data especially in uh... more intimate relationships. I'm pretty sure it would be worth your while but I need a honest discussion and clear communication for it to work"

 

[Pyropyro]

Yes, absolutely. I have noticed that in me. People who have my utmost respect can mop the floor with me in corrections. Because I trust their thought processes.

If I have previously thought someone was a complete fucking idiot, I don't care if they are right, I don't want to hear their criticism. I will go find someone I respect and get them to criticize me for it so it comes from "reputable sources".

Yup I agree, I also tend to ignore info provided by people that I identified as manipulative

As far as the redemption topic goes. I agree with the general gist. If the person is genuinely trying or their transgressions don't come from a manipulative or otherwise negligent place (such as mental laziness), I will let people slide until they can get it right.

I see people who keep screwing up (again, through no perceived negligent intentions) as toddlers crawling all over you, scratching and pulling. They mean nothing by it. They're just doing what toddlers do.

Yup I just view their traits as amusing quirks unless of course said traits would endanger me or said person in the future.

 

[Pyropyro]

I see what you're getting at. "Genuine" is close, but I think "straight-forward" works better. We either speak our mind or we don't speak. We have uncomplicated needs, and we desire uncomplicated relationships. We naturally avoid drama, as it make absolutely no sense to us.

On a separate note, I don't think the third con is quite right. Most of my emotions come out quite readily for those I'm close to. The problem is that I tend to actively bottle up things like anger, so you may not even realize that I'm angry until I blow up in your face.

You nailed it => "straight-forward".

Hmmm... how about difficulty in expressing deep emotions (e.g. anger etc.) efficiently when in stressful conditions or with or unfamiliar people

 

[Pyropyro]

Note: Uh it seems that I can't edit the OP anymore, well I'll just add the new thing here.


Pros:
1. They won't backstab you, they prefer to dissect you though (with or without your consent)
2. Can be gregarious if encouraged light-heartedly
3. Loyal if they find you worthy of being a friend
4. Open to criticism and conflict (if said criticism/conflict is based on rational grounds)
5. Loves unconditionally (accdng to data I found over the net, probably not the showy type of love but it's there nonetheless)
6. Won't aim to dominate or bully you (too much effort on their part)
7. Honest Straight-forward (not because of honesty or moral grounds, INTP's simply hate inaccuracies)
8. Doesn't show it/state it but will always give you a chance to redeem yourself
Will provide lots of chances for you to redeem yourself (but may not show it) but will let you go once they see you as irredeemable.
9. Accommodating and lenient to others until their standards, generosity or patience is abused

Cons:
1. They will judge you first (gather data) before finding you worthy of companionship
2. They don't mince words especially if you need it
3. Will not express emotions Has difficulty in expressing deep emotions (e.g. anger etc.) when in stressful conditions or with or unfamiliar people (but could be if you pissed them long enough, by then beware)
4. Will sometimes be at Cloud Nine
5. Finds some social activities pointless unless explained thoroughly to them
6. won't help you with buffing your ego (Find a feeler) unless it's part of their plan to help you improve
7. Will act strangely (moreso than usual) if they aim to have a "relationship upgrade" with you.
8. Will probably oblivious to your feelings unless they studied/experienced this aspect of your life

 

[Nibbler]

7. Will act strangely (moreso than usual) if they aim to have a "relationship upgrade" with you.

By the way, this one amused me. It's not like the other ones aren't true, but this one is uncomfortably so.

 

[xbox]

The worthless person compartment is like being lost in the dark snowy mountains battering frigid winds.

 

[Reluctantly]

Alright since my post has been dismissed, rather than addressed, I'll assume it's because no one knows what to do with it. Let's put this into some kind of scenario:

Pyropyro knows a person that constantly misunderstands him. Let's say this person even has a position of authority and tries to dictate to Pyropyro the right kind of behavior he should follow, believing the right behavior will be better for his overall well-being and health.

This person means well however, but is clearly not very insightful/intelligent (whatever you want to call this misunderstanding here), so Pryopryo has a dilemma. Even though Pyropyro has tried to resolve the misunderstanding, he is eventually forced to conclude that this person is too stupid or ignorant or is just incapable of knowing any better.


Pyropyro decides to cut the person out of his life, but Pyropyro has a problem. This person knows other people that Pyropyro knows and makes the issue quite complex. To cut the person out of Pyropyro's life, the problem is as follows, does Pyropyro influence the other people to see this person as irredeemable or does he allow those other people to make their own decisions about this person, even if that person will influence them to see Pyropyro as irredeemable?


Either way, this person is cut out of Pyropyro's life, but there's a clear ethical difference in how he does it. One answer tries to tell other people that this person should be irredeemable to them and the other answer does not. Now how does this fit into your section 8, pyro?

Which one do you all prefer? I'm clearly for not trying to tell people what to think of other people.

 

[Nibbler]

This person means well however, but is clearly not very insightful/intelligent (whatever you want to call this misunderstanding here), so Pryopryo has a dilemma. Even though Pyropyro has tried to resolve the misunderstanding, he is eventually forced to conclude that this person is too stupid or ignorant or is just incapable of knowing any better.

Hm, a "well-meaning meddler" scenario. I see the person as manipulative. Manipulative people get sent down the chute. Well meaning meddlers will stop the meddling once asked--maybe falling off the wagon a few innocent times. Manipulators are forever.

If I can't cleanly shake the person because they are intertwined in a life I must attend, I have innate ways of brushing people off without them knowing I'm brushing them off.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your overarching point.

 

[ayn]

I don't think the word choice of redeem is all that appropriate; it implies they are no good, if I don't think they are.

The idea of people being seen as good or not good to other people has always been a big internal ethical dilemma for me because I can separate myself from someone, but still empathize with them regardless (where other people lose all empathy); particularly if I end up treating them as no good, due to an impulse of stress, I feel conflicted about it afterwards. This is something that I've never been able to change and yet I know that I am INTP, but that this involves Fi. And I don't really do sympathy at all; I don't like the idea of it.

Honestly, I feel like I'm not being objective, the few times this has happened; and I instinctively have a certain amount of distrust in the actions/judgments of others that feel polarizing people into good and bad is necessary to decide who should be in their lives and who should not. Seriously though, this kind of thinking is the basis for forming good and evil and the conflict that precedes its formation.

I don't really do this, for the record. But I do have an internal sense of whether or the person will be good or bad for me; and I will stay away or interact depending on that, without having to truly judge their person, which again, seems inherently futile.

But whatever...I've said stuff like this before and been accused of being idealist; and I get the feeling this might be something archetypal that people either feel compelled to or not. And maybe you don't and most INTPs would say they don't. I don't know, whatever. It feels necessary to at least say something here about the distinctions.

I think I understand where you're getting at. I feel the same way. When people mistreat me or act in ways I dislike, I can usually see their point of view. Someone treats me like shit, I understand their motivation.. But it doesn't mean I want them in my life. Is that what you mean?

I definitely have done this myself. For example, my sister is a bigtime ESFJ.. I understand she has many insecurities, and that she needs to feel loved at all times.. But to me that doesn't excuse the way she emotionally abuses me. So I cut her out of my life. I feel the conflict within myself, knowing she feels abandoned and hurt, but I need to respect myself and do whats best for me..

Is that where you're coming from?

 

[Pyropyro]

Alright since my post has been dismissed, rather than addressed, I'll assume it's because no one knows what to do with it. Let's put this into some kind of scenario:

Pyropyro knows a person that constantly misunderstands him. Let's say this person even has a position of authority and tries to dictate to Pyropyro the right kind of behavior he should follow, believing the right behavior will be better for his overall well-being and health.

This person means well however, but is clearly not very insightful/intelligent (whatever you want to call this misunderstanding here), so Pryopryo has a dilemma. Even though Pyropyro has tried to resolve the misunderstanding, he is eventually forced to conclude that this person is too stupid or ignorant or is just incapable of knowing any better.


Pyropyro decides to cut the person out of his life, but Pyropyro has a problem. This person knows other people that Pyropyro knows and makes the issue quite complex. To cut the person out of Pyropyro's life, the problem is as follows, does Pyropyro influence the other people to see this person as irredeemable or does he allow those other people to make their own decisions about this person, even if that person will influence them to see Pyropyro as irredeemable?


Either way, this person is cut out of Pyropyro's life, but there's a clear ethical difference in how he does it. One answer tries to tell other people that this person should be irredeemable to them and the other answer does not. Now how does this fit into your section 8, pyro?

Which one do you all prefer? I'm clearly for not trying to tell people what to think of other people.

I'll take option three

Hmm... An average INTP wouldn't even bother influencing other people (we're not the bossy type IMO) or even care about what other people think about their relationship with someone in the recycle bin.

An per Nibbler's post above, there's a difference between manipulators and well meaning meddlers. The former gets to the irredeemable bin, the latter will be told by the INTP where they would be most effective in helping. I've encountered these meddlers before and I helped them channel their energies to somewhere else. I get a load off my back and they get something else to do so it's a win-win solution.

I think more J type people would fit on that insightful/intelligent disdain

 

[Reluctantly]

Hm, a "well-meaning meddler" scenario. I see the person as manipulative. Manipulative people get sent down the chute. Well meaning meddlers will stop the meddling once asked--maybe falling off the wagon a few innocent times. Manipulators are forever.

If I can't cleanly shake the person because they are intertwined in a life I must attend, I have innate ways of brushing people off without them knowing I'm brushing them off.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your overarching point.

Well, um, whether the person is considered "manipulative" or a "well-meaning meddler" is more or less your choice, but not really an objective truth...or at least I could say there are more objective ways of analyzing the situation. The perspective of that other person also has their own choice of how they want to see them-self. So this isn't what I wanted to get at; please refer to Ayn's reply below.

I think I understand where you're getting at. I feel the same way. When people mistreat me or act in ways I dislike, I can usually see their point of view. Someone treats me like shit, I understand their motivation.. But it doesn't mean I want them in my life. Is that what you mean?

I definitely have done this myself. For example, my sister is a bigtime ESFJ.. I understand she has many insecurities, and that she needs to feel loved at all times.. But to me that doesn't excuse the way she emotionally abuses me. So I cut her out of my life. I feel the conflict within myself, knowing she feels abandoned and hurt, but I need to respect myself and do whats best for me..

Is that where you're coming from?

Yeah, but in that sense, there's no moral dilemma; I was mostly referring to the bolded part (maybe I should have made the text bigger too ).

Pyropyro decides to cut the person out of his life, but Pyropyro has a problem. This person knows other people that Pyropyro knows and makes the issue quite complex. To cut the person out of Pyropyro's life, the problem is as follows, does Pyropyro influence the other people to see this person as irredeemable or does he allow those other people to make their own decisions about this person, even if that person will influence them to see Pyropyro as irredeemable?

Some people find that their morality drives them to judge people as not only worthy to them-self, but also other people. I'm interested in hearing about this, but if you all don't think you have enough self-awareness to supply an answer, then I understand that too.

I'll take option three

Hmm... An average INTP wouldn't even bother influencing other people (we're not the bossy type IMO) or even care about what other people think about their relationship with someone in the recycle bin.

An per Nibbler's post above, there's a difference between manipulators and well meaning meddlers. The former gets to the irredeemable bin, the latter will be told by the INTP where they would be most effective in helping. I've encountered these meddlers before and I helped them channel their energies to somewhere else. I get a load off my back and they get something else to do so it's a win-win solution.

I think more J type people would fit on that insightful/intelligent disdain

Right, but you kind of missed my point. People are interesting in that they form different kinds of easily observable morality. I'm asking you to tell me which one seems more natural to you of the quote in Ayn's reply above and possibly give some kind of context for it other than regurgitating a description of INTPs not being bossy that has nothing to do with your own qualia/thoughts/motivations.

 

[Pyropyro]

Right, but you kind of missed my point. People are interesting in that they form different kinds of easily observable morality. I'm asking you to tell me which one seems more natural to you of the quote in Ayn's reply above and possibly give some kind of context for it other than regurgitating a description of INTPs not being bossy that has nothing to do with your own qualia/thoughts/motivations.

Uh... I'm getting confused, you asked me how it fits to my model right? So aren't we talking about a general INTP topic and how we should improve it rather than my own personal views?

Anyways, I wouldn't bother influencing people, too much effort, unless of course the said person is a threat. A general douche wouldn't be discussed with my friends, a known con-man would be. If I understand where you're getting at.

 

[Nibbler]

Well, um, whether the person is considered "manipulative" or a "well-meaning meddler" is more or less your choice, but not really an objective truth...or at least I could say there are more objective ways of analyzing the situation. The perspective of that other person also has their own choice of how they want to see them-self. So this isn't what I wanted to get at; please refer to Ayn's reply below.

Ok, I see that point. But I counter that in life one must take things in subjective contexts as it pertains to individual principles of the beholder. I went back to read your original point and I interpret that you see complete objective reactions to these situation as the ideal, even though not quite attainable.

I think that's overly simplistic. For instance, ayn's manipulative sister has caused undue stress on her life. However, if she (using ayn only for the hypothetical argument) then goes out and applies the same standards of reaction that she has for her sister to anyone who might be having a bad day when they meet, she might be prone to dismiss them entirely, potentially missing out on a mutually valuable acquaintance.

I have people in my life who are mildly meddling and I have no intentions of booting them from my life. They are otherwise decent people to talk and pick their brains.

(braaaainzzz)

I see shades of gray here.

 

[Reluctantly]

Uh... I'm getting confused, you asked me how it fits to my model right? So aren't we talking about a general INTP topic and how we should improve it rather than my own personal views?

Yes, but logic in itself is somewhat meaningless. I'm trying to get people to think about what fills the logic. And then derive the logic from that.

For example,
Math says 2+2 = 4, but of what and in what way? If I have two oranges and two apples, what do I have four of exactly? Two oranges and two apples...
But someone else that has two apples and is given two more apples says they have four apples!

I went back to read your original point and I interpret that you see complete objective reactions to these situation as the ideal, even though not quite attainable.

No. Let's say I find you irredeemable. I can either focus on
1. Tell my friends what a irredeemable person you are so that they will be influenced to avoid or ostracize you.
2. Tell my friends how I find you personally irredeemable, but make clear that I don't think they should use my experiences with you to evaluate you as a person, but their own.