Why do INTP and ISTP have to be different?

[Montresor]

I know the differences. I know that there are around a dozen (maybe more) users here on this site who are undecided. I am one of them.

"oh well I'm 50/50 S/N" <<

It's a recurring theme on this board and others.

Why do INTPs and ISTPs have to be different?

We are the Ti-doms.


It's been said that one way to quickly tell the difference is that ISTPs care about how things work - that is often the purpose of (our/their) logical analysis. To be interesting, the object of analysis must be practical and concrete. ISTPs use known data and facts to reach underlying principles. Is this where Ni comes into play?

So, do INTPs not care about how things work? Are (we/you/they) really just interested in theories for the sake of theory? Is this what makes (them/you/us) pure thinkers? INTPs can analyze anything, concrete or abstract? Is that it?

So let's talk about Se, then? It's so easy to work yourself into a never-ending loop:

Se notices the details in the environment and may lead to spontaneous action,

ISTPs have a tendency to conserve their energy, biding their time until they "sense" something that draws their attention, then they take action.

ISTPs have exceptional hand-eye coordination ... respond quickly and accurately in emergency situations, Se gives them a leg up on the physical world, talented athletes ...

But there are lots of examples of ISTPs who defy this and INTPs who defy (by proxy) it as well. Once again, we get nowhere. Most people are halfway in the middle.

It's a Bell Curve meets Venn Diagram situation and the probability that a given individual is not a "pure" type seems to be very high.

They say that the auxiliary function isn't really developed all that well until late adolescence? So until then, what? INTPs and ISTPs are too similar to differentiate? WE NEED STEREOTYPES people!

Then there's video typing - the end all. Or is it? Suddenly we can tell the difference between Ne and Se in thirty seconds by watching a person's eyes. Now there's "pure" INTPs and "mudblood" INTPs ... INTPs who actually aren't INTP because their eyes don't reflect TiNe. So what then? We're at the mercy of the video typing experts?


The oft' stated advice to newcomers is to perform a functional analysis of the self. Identify and understand the 8 cognitive functions and their respective polarities, learn how these correspond to the 16 MBTI types.

Ti-dom, check
Fe-inferior, double check
Ne, wtf is that?
Se, ...uhhhh check
Si, check, definitely!

wait ... contradiction already? OK, so NOT Se.

Te? sorta
Ni ... mayhaps


oh well let me just take the cognitive function test

It says I use Se and Si? hrmmm.
It also says I use Te and Ti.

INFJ? No ... wait, they're too rare. No, probably INFJ. Everybody is INFJ these days...

ISTP then! No ... Si (D'OH) Maybe I don't "get" Si.

How come every Si description available rings home then?

I must be Si-dom?

ISFJ then. ... well, no not really. That's not right... Can't I be TiSi? No? DAMMIT.

INTP then ... wait, no ...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Typology is pidgeonholing live with it or try to expand/modify it to make it more accurate. It isnt so strange that if you're gonna divide billions of people into 16 types then within each of these 16 types there HAS to be room for a lot of differences on an individual level.

Also functions are there and effect your behavior even if they aren't developed so no ISTP and INTP are not the same when they're children.

 

[Montresor]

Typology is pidgeonholing live with it or try to expand/modify it to make it more accurate. It isnt so strange that if you're gonna divide billions of people into 16 types then within each of these 16 types there HAS to be room for a lot of differences on an individual level.

Yeah ...

what I'm trying to say, in a sense, is that for every pure ISTP/ pure INTP there are probably 30 hybrids. The line is blurry.

Do you have anything thoughtful to say?

 

[Nezaros]

As Absurdity said in the similar thread I started a while ago, type is just the order in which you rely on each of the eight functions. Being Ti-dom means ISTP's and INTP's are very similar but their primary methods of gathering information are fundamentally different. My understanding is that Se has the mind take information directly from the environment, while Ne processes that information subconsciously prior to it registering consciously. This would suggest that ISTP's lean more toward activities that actively stimulate the senses, while INTP's more lean away from the fast-paced and towards theorizing, but these are generalizations that don't always hold true.

what I'm trying to say, in a sense, is that for every pure ISTP/ pure INTP there are probably 30 hybrids. The line is blurry.

Relevant.

 

[Ink]

As I've said somewhere before I am an INTP who grew up with 3 ISTPs, there is a huge difference between me and them in terms of how we view the world, interests etc... We are both T-doms true, but I share the popular view that the N/S is the biggest difference between individuals, in terms of MBTI...

 

[Montresor]

As Absurdity said in the similar thread I started a while ago, type is just the order in which you rely on each of the eight functions. Being Ti-dom means ISTP's and INTP's are very similar but their primary methods of gathering information are fundamentally different. My understanding is that Se has the mind take information directly from the environment, while Ne processes that information subconsciously prior to it registering consciously. This would suggest that ISTP's lean more toward activities that actively stimulate the senses, while INTP's more lean away from the fast-paced and towards theorizing, but these are generalizations that don't always hold true.



Relevant.

hahaha the link you posted was definitely part of the impetus for me starting this thread. Too funny. Plus I wanted to elaborate on your thread, which sort of got killed off by Yours Truly.

I did get to re-read the list I made about INTP v. ISTP again though that was fun. I thought it was funny.


I am of the personal belief that Ne is many regions of the cortex being excited when perceiving external data - and since the regions of the cortex have corresponding regions in the thalamus, and the thalamus receives the information first, the thalamus must be responsible for sorting (dissociating in the case of Ne) the information.

Se, on the other hand, is more represented by a specific sensory area of the cortex focusing on the external data, rather than the (truly) scatter-brained Ne, Se uses all of the capabilities of a smaller area. It's localized v. generalized cortical processing.


^Not going to get into that too much because nobody seems to want to talk about Neuroscience here. I guess the scab is starting to heal if I'm already picking at it. (oh yeah! - *Duffman's patented thrust*)

Also, I may have posted the same thing in your thread.

OK SO I didn't want this to be exactly like your thread. That would be pointless. Are we to the point where this stuff has been analyzed ad nauseam?

This is different. Please stop posting the differences between Ne and Se, or giving textbook cliché anti-MBTI answers, and try to come up with an original concept that acknowledges the principal axioms of the OP!

 

[BigApplePi]

Your Q assumes people fall into these types, one type distinct from the other. I like to think of the N versus S as a characteristic where some people are interested in particulars and some in more generalities. That defines a clear difference, yet if so it should not be so hard to figure anyone can be interested in both ... sometimes one sometimes the other.

It's been said that one way to quickly tell the difference is that ISTPs care about how things work - that is often the purpose of (our/their) logical analysis.

If one cares how things work, one had better look at specifics. Here "things" are implied to be objects in the external world. Yet very abstract things work or don't work also yet the "work" term is not usually applied to abstract things.

To be interesting, the object of analysis must be practical and concrete.

Who sez that? There are lots of non-practical things of interest.

ISTPs use known data and facts to reach underlying principles. Is this where Ni comes into play?

Yes. One must intuit to look for principles.

So, do INTPs not care about how things work? Are (we/you/they) really just interested in theories for the sake of theory? Is this what makes (them/you/us) pure thinkers? INTPs can analyze anything, concrete or abstract? Is that it?

Yes. INTP's may be more interested in abstract things. Theory can be VERY practical. It's just that theory deals with generalities and it later is applied to specifics.

So let's talk about Se, then? It's so easy to work yourself into a never-ending loop:

Se notices the details in the environment and may lead to spontaneous action,

Okay.

ISTPs have a tendency to conserve their energy, biding their time until they "sense" something that draws their attention, then they take action.

ISTPs have exceptional hand-eye coordination ... respond quickly and accurately in emergency situations, Se gives them a leg up on the physical world, talented athletes ...

Anyone who studies specifics and immediacy may be more efficient. But that's good only as long as things work. When things don't work, INTP's may come into play because they can look at generalities which are guides to spot exceptions.

But there are lots of examples of ISTPs who defy this and INTPs who defy (by proxy) it as well. Once again, we get nowhere. Most people are halfway in the middle.

It's a Bell Curve meets Venn Diagram situation and the probability that a given individual is not a "pure" type seems to be very high.

Right. Who cares to never look at specifics or never to think generally?

They say that the auxiliary function isn't really developed all that well until late adolescence? So until then, what? INTPs and ISTPs are too similar to differentiate? WE NEED STEREOTYPES people!

If one is inexperienced, that's the same as undeveloped. If two undeveloped people are both near zero, you can't tell them much apart.

Then there's video typing - the end all. Or is it? Suddenly we can tell the difference between Ne and Se in thirty seconds by watching a person's eyes. Now there's "pure" INTPs and "mudblood" INTPs ... INTPs who actually aren't INTP because their eyes don't reflect TiNe. So what then? We're at the mercy of the video typing experts?

I dunno. Maybe these experts think they can spot those interested in specifics as opposed to generalities. Why not?

The oft' stated advice to newcomers is to perform a functional analysis of the self. Identify and understand the 8 cognitive functions and their respective polarities, learn how these correspond to the 16 MBTI types.

Ti-dom, check
Fe-inferior, double check
Ne, wtf is that?
Se, ...uhhhh check
Si, check, definitely!

wait ... contradiction already? OK, so NOT Se.

Yes. One has to study all those if one wants to know what they are.

I'll stop here.

 

[scorpiomover]

I know the differences. I know that there are around a dozen (maybe more) users here on this site who are undecided. I am one of them.

"oh well I'm 50/50 S/N" <<

It's a recurring theme on this board and others.

Why do INTPs and ISTPs have to be different?

We are the Ti-doms.

Actually, you're the Introverted Rationals. Why do Ti-doms and Fi-doms have to be different?

It's been said that one way to quickly tell the difference is that ISTPs care about how things work - that is often the purpose of (our/their) logical analysis. To be interesting, the object of analysis must be practical and concrete. ISTPs use known data and facts to reach underlying principles.

No. Jung described S v N, as developing new perceptive ideas based on externally observed images from observation, or internally recalled images from memory. They see and figure things out. You remember something you heard years ago, and use that to figure things out. The ISTP's conclusions are based on concrete data. The INTP's conclusions are based on cartoons.

Is this where Ni comes into play?

No. It's funny to see an ISTP use tertiary Ni in action. Every so often, they just come out with some clever theory of psychological manipulation, on how to get by some impossible problem, from nowhere.

So, do INTPs not care about how things work?No. Both ISTPs and INTPs care about how things work, but for entirely different reasons. ISTPs care about how the car in front of them works. INTPs care about how their uncle's car from 20 years ago works.

Are (we/you/they) really just interested in theories for the sake of theory?

Yes, and Jung said all Ti-doms do.

Is this what makes (them/you/us) pure thinkers?

No, it's their lack of reliance on direct physical observation.

INTPs can analyze anything, concrete or abstract? Is that it?

As long as they saw it years ago, yes. If they just see it today, it's not yet in their memory, and so is not yet an internal image, and so no.

So let's talk about Se, then? It's so easy to work yourself into a never-ending loop:

With Ti divorced from Ne, yes. That's why you need to develop Ne, to get anywhere with Ti.

Se notices the details in the environment and may lead to spontaneous action,

ISTPs have a tendency to conserve their energy, biding their time until they "sense" something that draws their attention, then they take action.

ISTPs have exceptional hand-eye coordination ... respond quickly and accurately in emergency situations, Se gives them a leg up on the physical world, talented athletes ...

But there are lots of examples of ISTPs who defy this and INTPs who defy (by proxy) it as well. Once again, we get nowhere. Most people are halfway in the middle.

It's a Bell Curve meets Venn Diagram situation and the probability that a given individual is not a "pure" type seems to be very high.

Actually, they aren't. A lot of INTPs here are probably ISTPs, or INTJs, or ISTJs. It's not that the INTP lacks hand-eye co-ordination. But it looks different. Either he concentrates so hard his eyes stand out, and you think his eyes will pop out any second from staring that hard at things, or he drives like he's barely looking at the road, almost as if he is driving from some psychic ability to know where the cars are, without having to look. ISTPs just "drive", and they're really good at it, but it does make sense.

They say that the auxiliary function isn't really developed all that well until late adolescence?

At least.

So until then, what?

Jung pointed out that until then, the mind behaves as if it's still primitive and forming. Lots of questions. Not much analytical data to build up a new construct of what the answers could be, not sources from observation or sources from memory. Tendencies to jump to pre-established conclusions that one read in books and recited using the same terminology, with almost no variation from the original concepts, even though those concepts have inconsistencies which make them unable to answer the questions as they currently stand.

WE NEED STEREOTYPES people!

Ti-Si loop. Ti & Ne is off-the-wall thinking, like the anti-stereotype.

Then there's video typing - the end all. Or is it? Suddenly we can tell the difference between Ne and Se in thirty seconds by watching a person's eyes.

I personally think that it's not that easy to describe one's cognition by watching people's eyes. But if you do manage to prove it, then please tell the CIA. They'd love to be able to tell what terrorists are thinking, by their eyes.

We're at the mercy of the video typing experts?

You might be.

The oft' stated advice to newcomers is to perform a functional analysis of the self. Identify and understand the 8 cognitive functions and their respective polarities, learn how these correspond to the 16 MBTI types.

Ti-dom, check
Fe-inferior, double check
Ne, wtf is that?
Se, ...uhhhh check
Si, check, definitely!

wait ... contradiction already? OK, so NOT Se.

Te? sorta
Ni ... mayhaps

Hold it. You have Si OR Se. One is divergent. One is convergent. You won't use both simultaneously. It's like trying to put a car both in forwards and reverse gear, simultaneously. Just won't go. Your cognitive car, might also have forwards and reverse. But you're going to drive one way, most of the time. So you could have Si with occasional Se, or Se with occasional Si, but never both equally, not unless you're still just Ti with no other functions formed. So, for you to say that you have Se AND Si, isn't really being Ti-accurate at all. Read Se & Si again. Which one is your regular function for sense data input, and which is your rarely-used reverse function?

How come every Si description available rings home then?

I must be Si-dom?

Because Ni and Si both are portrayed as if the Sun is coming out of their backsides, probably to compensate for the way Jung described them as nothing more than object lessons for humanity.

Try to really observe the way people BEHAVE, in more detail. When you do, these differences between Ti-Ne and Ti-Se, will become startlingly clear.

 

[scorpiomover]

but I share the popular view that the N/S is the biggest difference between individuals, in terms of MBTI...

Jung said it was the I/E. It was his theory, after all. He's the genius who came up with it.

Your theory is probably an entirely different theory. It might also be true, or not. But it's almost certainly NOT Jung's.

 

[Montresor]

My understanding is that Se has the mind take information directly from the environment, while Ne processes that information subconsciously prior to it registering consciously. This would suggest that ISTP's lean more toward activities that actively stimulate the senses, while INTP's more lean away from the fast-paced and towards theorizing, but these are generalizations that don't always hold true.

I'm going to give this post some more attention, because I re-read it and it's pretty bright. I like.

I like how you use the word "mind" because you're not using the word "brain". It's appropriate in this context.

Se gathers info directly from the environment, but Ne processes it subconsciously first ... a noble thought. One I've not yet entertained. I'll have to get back to you but my immediate response is to say: "remember that neural circuitry is responsible for every single iota of brain activity"

As I've said somewhere before I am an INTP who grew up with 3 ISTPs, there is a huge difference between me and them in terms of how we view the world, interests etc... We are both T-doms true, but I share the popular view that the N/S is the biggest difference between individuals, in terms of MBTI...

What you said has been duly noted, as a potential INTP and a potential ISTP, I can't relate personally the way you can. I don't know any other ISTPs personally and I only know one INTP and I actually think he is ENTP.

Contrary to the "popular view" - I share the belief that N/S is the most fluid and most insignificant of differences between individuals, but only because my self-assessment yields the result of 50-50 in all situations (plus it's the auxiliary/tertiary polarity vs. the more intense dom/inf) I see them as perceiving functions and they co-exist as two distinct but interrelated patterns of neural activity. An individual has simply learned through conditioning and reward systems to activate one first, then the other.

Your Q assumes people fall into these types, one type distinct from the other. I like to think of the N versus S as a characteristic where some people are interested in particulars and some in more generalities. That defines a clear difference, yet if so it should not be so hard to figure anyone can be interested in both ... sometimes one sometimes the other. If one cares how things work, one had better look at specifics. Here "things" are implied to be objects in the external world. Yet very abstract things work or don't work also yet the "work" term is not usually applied to abstract things.

Who sez that? There are lots of non-practical things of interest. Ja juss stereotypn' mon

Yes. One must intuit to look for principles.

Yes. INTP's may be more interested in abstract things. Theory can be VERY practical. It's just that theory deals with generalities and it later is applied to specifics. Good point, and that's a working definition of theory for all of it's uses. I guess it's the focus of Se, with its polar Ni, that draws conclusions based strictly on observable data (like it senses first and intuits after) - opposite for INTP.

Okay.Anyone who studies specifics and immediacy may be more efficient. But that's good only as long as things work. When things don't work, INTP's may come into play because they can look at generalities which are guides to spot exceptions.

Right. Who cares to never look at specifics or never to think generally? It's not possible, presumably, but again I take the stance that these are objective neural activities.

If one is inexperienced, that's the same as undeveloped. If two undeveloped people are both near zero, you can't tell them much apart.


I dunno. Maybe these experts think they can spot those interested in specifics as opposed to generalities. Why not? Maybe, but they're using cues that come from deep inside. Observable clues that basically remove the guesswork. I think they're onto something but can't be sure.

Yes. One has to study all those if one wants to know what they are.

I'll stop here.

I'm going to run off and check and see if Architect replied to you about whether he thinks you are INTP.

 

[wonkavision]

So what then? We're at the mercy of the video typing experts?

Yes. Just post a video here, please. And submit it to Pod'Lair too, will ya?

Then tell us what they say.

M'kay, thanks.

 

[Montresor]

^ Typical Ni dom. Am I right? (wonka)


Wanted to reply to scorpio's post as well but multi-quoting has me bug-eyed and neck-sore and I have other things to do than try and identify false analogies et c.

I did appreciate many of the things you said @scorpiomover it was overall clever and thoughtful, but I don't have much of a reply, after three attempts at a quote by quote breakdown with clever remarks I grew altogether weary of the idea.

 

[Montresor]

Yes. Just post a video here, please. And submit it to Pod'Lair too, will ya?

Then tell us what they say.

M'kay, thanks.

I did post a video here.

Auburn typed me SiFe, then corrected to SeTi. Then said ISTP if MBTI.
Architect said ISTP.
own8age said INFJ then took it back and sort of gave up then got banned.
Nobody else answered. I took the videos down.

M'kay, thanks.

 

[Montresor]

Sorry for the triple post folks. Finally have a reply for scorpio.

I personally think that it's not that easy to describe one's cognition by watching people's eyes. But if you do manage to prove it, then please tell the CIA. They'd love to be able to tell what terrorists are thinking, by their eyes.

^ok well let's just call up the CIA and start telling them all about the MBTI: I have a way of describing one's cognition by watching their eyes = I can tell what terrorists are thinking.

ohhh look at the terrorist perceiving concrete data from his environment.

ohh look at him now he's using Ti. This is bad. Very very bad. Alert the CIA.

Hold it. You have Si OR Se. One is divergent. One is convergent. You won't use both simultaneously. It's like trying to put a car both in forwards and reverse gear, simultaneously. Just won't go. Your cognitive car, might also have forwards and reverse. But you're going to drive one way, most of the time. So you could have Si with occasional Se, or Se with occasional Si, but never both equally, not unless you're still just Ti with no other functions formed. So, for you to say that you have Se AND Si, isn't really being Ti-accurate at all. Read Se & Si again. Which one is your regular function for sense data input, and which is your rarely-used reverse function?

Because Ni and Si both are portrayed as if the Sun is coming out of their backsides, probably to compensate for the way Jung described them as nothing more than object lessons for humanity.

Try to really observe the way people BEHAVE, in more detail. When you do, these differences between Ti-Ne and Ti-Se, will become startlingly clear. This however, is another moment of clarity in your otherwise - ehh, off the wall, language.

Ok you obviously didn't catch the parody.

I was talking about the cognitive functions tests. You've seen them. They're for the educated only.

 

[wonkavision]

^ Typical Ni dom. Am I right? (wonka)

Yeah. I'm an INFJ.

And I was torn between ENFP, INFP, and INFJ for a long time.

Pod'Lair really helped to clear it up for me. Specifically, they helped me to see that I'm a J, even though I don't fit a lot of the MBTI stereotypes.

And it turns out that even the people who typed me as xSTP were kind of right, in the sense that I actually do use Ti and Se, just that they are my Tertiary and Inferior functions.

See? Isn't clarity wonderful?

Just try it! Come on, you have nothing to lose and possibly something to gain.

And let us know the results. It should be interesting.

EDIT: oh, I just saw your new post. Okay, so you took the video down. If the video still exists somewhere, is there any way you can send me a link? I want to see if I can figure it out.

 

[Brontosaurie]

i would like to see you on video

could give typing a try though i doubt it would clarify anything

 

[Ink]

An individual has simply learned through conditioning and reward systems to activate one first, then the other.

That's incredibly over-simplifying it

 

[Montresor]

That's incredibly over-simplifying it

Then you take the same stance against Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner, and to hold true to one of my very first posts I ever posted on this forum, I think yer a fool.

This oversimplification is precisely what psychology needed to get farther ahead in the early 20th century and then it was refined in the middle part of the century into an all-encompassing working theory of behaviorism. It holds firm under the cynical eye of scrutiny, and it's relevant in all aspects of psychology, including personality theory.

 

[wonkavision]

Then you take the same stance against Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner, and to hold true to one of my very first posts I ever posted on this forum, I think yer a fool.

This oversimplification is precisely what psychology needed to get farther ahead in the early 20th century and then it was refined in the middle part of the century into an all-encompassing working theory of behaviorism. It holds firm under the cynical eye of scrutiny, and it's relevant in all aspects of psychology, including personality theory.

I think he probably meant that there is a "nature" side of the equation, in addition to the "nurture."

But way to overreact. INFJ, perhaps?

INTP Inferior Fe, maybe. But in any case, do ISTPs get so worked up about theories? Probably not.

 

[wonkavision]

^ok well let's just call up the CIA and start telling them all about the MBTI: I have a way of describing one's cognition by watching their eyes = I can tell what terrorists are thinking.

ohhh look at the terrorist perceiving concrete data from his environment.

ohh look at him now he's using Ti. This is bad. Very very bad. Alert the CIA.

This was hilarious.

 

[scorpiomover]

^ok well let's just call up the CIA and start telling them all about the MBTI: I have a way of describing one's cognition by watching their eyes = I can tell what terrorists are thinking.

ohhh look at the terrorist perceiving concrete data from his environment.

ohh look at him now he's using Ti. This is bad. Very very bad. Alert the CIA.

ROTFLMAO.

I think the CIA would want proof, like they'd present people before the visual readers here, having already got full-blown psychological profiles on them, and then ask the visual readers specific questions. The visual readers would probably say "it depends", and then the CIA would tie it down to specifics, such that if visual reading of type was feasible, then it would be extremely clear if it worked or not.

Ok you obviously didn't catch the parody.

I was talking about the cognitive functions tests. You've seen them. They're for the educated only.

Oh. I guess I must be un-educated then.

You seem to be quite confused about the differences between ISTPs and INTPs. They are very similar because they share the same dominant function, which is the majority of one's cognition, according to Jung. It's rather like trying to decide between INTJ and INFJ. Difficult to tell between them, as most of what they say, is Ni-based. But it's still possible to tell the differences.

As to INTP versus ISTP, you have to remember that they are both Ti-doms. So you can only see the differences, by examining when one is NOT Ti-ing. But Ti is dom. An Aux function only HELPS the dom function achieve its objective. When Ne uses Ti, Ne takes its ideas from memory. When Se uses Ti, Se takes its ideas from direct observation.

It makes a big difference, in unusual circumstances. Take a situation where logically, there are several ways to accomplish your goal. Sensors will judge the situation initially, in terms of direct observation, which is objective, i.e. whoever looks at the situation, the observations are going to be the same for everyone. So, whoever is a Sensor, will probably infer the same solution from the same objective observations. An Intuitive infers solutions from his own memory, which is composed of his own unique experiences. So Intuitives tend to come up with solutions that most have not thought of.

Also, for exactly the same reasons, Sensors can follow things as they are happening. A Sensor can cook up a meal, while watching Jamie Oliver prepare that meal on TV. But he only knows that the recipe works as is. It is difficult for him to know how a slight change in the recipe would affect things, because slight changes in reality can cause large consequences. He prefers to stick to what he knows, works. To know if a change is worth trying, he has to do an experiment.

An Intuitive uses his memory. So he usually struggles to follow a recipe while it is going on. If an Intuitive is cooking a meal from a Jamie Oliver programme, then he has to record it, then watch a bit, stop the video, do it, then watch a bit more, stop the video, do it, etc, often going back and repeating bits, because his mind works from memory, and it's not in memory. However, when he watches the entire programme, from beginning to end, and understands what was done, then it passes into memory, and then he can manipulate it at will. He can add herbs, change a meat recipe for a vegetarian one, almost anything he wants, because memory is not a single objective reality, like reality is. Memory is a series of separate events, all stored in the same location. So different parts of different events can be combined and recalled together in memory. As a consequence, a sign of an intuitive is the ability to combine many disconnected ideas or objects into a new object.

Generally, because of the above, Sensors tend to panic a bit, when they are dealing with a situation that is unlike what they have already dealt with before. It's outside of their experience. Basically, they panic from being unable to formulate a solution due to a lack of data. Intuitives tend to panic a bit, when there are lots of factors. Each factor brings up recall from memories, and thus, one often gets conflicting memories, which causes confusion due to too much data.

 

[Jennywocky]

This was hilarious.

I got a laugh out of it.

... oh gawd .... what function did I sound like when I laughed??

 

[wonkavision]

I got a laugh out of it.

... oh gawd .... what function did I sound like when I laughed??

Well, to be honest, I think you're one of the many INFJs miscast as INTP, so it was.... Fe, maybe (?).

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't pretty confident of this intuition about your type, but no, I'm not dogmatically insisting on it either.
It would help if I could see a video (Hint-Hint).

Out of curiosity, have you ever looked into it?

And to avoid causing a total derail, have you ever considered ISTP, and if so, how did you finally determine it was INTP?
You may be able to provide insight for Montresor.

 

[Montresor]

I'm glad you guys thought that was funny.

Anyways, @scorpiomover, your latest post was much more ... uhh ... insightful! Explanatory. Adjective! Doesn't have any false analogies.

When I consider the analogies you used - there is no doubt I have a preference for N. .... when you use those analogies. I was given some other metaphors at the ISTP forum ... also dealing with food ... that describe Si v/ Se and I came to the conclusion that I have a huge preference for Si over Se, when I consider those analogies.

OK so anytime I learn something from video it has to be hands on. 100% I have to do something for myself before I can "do it" for myself. If ya catch my drift. This is cooking with Jamie Oliver, learning guitar solos, or taking apart a laptop. Pause, rewind, replay, pause, rewind, replay, pause, rewind, replay, do activity, pause, ...


I'll never be certain of my own type. I'm okay with that.

,


So back on topic with the OP - (sort of), if an EEG reveals certain cognitive functions, then it would also reveal specific patterns of impulses that define one function's dominance over another, right?

Experiment: hook up an EEG to a large sample of students (hundreds, say), and immerse them in a "white noise" (visual, auditory and tactile) environment (or sensory deprivation), [or both].

Trigger 100 simple perceiving responses in each person (i.e. BANG, or FLASH of LIGHT, or, ELECTRIC SHOCK) and then document the pattern of neural activity. Se vs. Ne should be clearly evident.

We really should be able to type people from EEG alone. I would support that more than video typing.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, to be honest, I think you're one of the many INFJs miscast as INTP, so it was.... Fe, maybe (?).

If I could be any type besides what I am, INFJ would be a good one. So I don't have any kind of bias against it. And I've very happy that one of my children is an INFJ.

But trust me. I'm not a J. Nowhere close. Out of all four of my letters, in fact, the NP are the most obvious ones. I'm a walking cliche for the type, honestly.

And to avoid causing a total derail, have you ever considered ISTP, and if so, how did you finally determine it was INTP?

See above.

Apparently the two letters you are questioning are the two that there are no question about for me.

I usually expect people to debate me on my T (and, on this forum, my I... because I know the way I present myself here in a very introverted environment, I come off as far more extroverted).

Where on earth did you get this "intuition" from, and why?

...A video? You'd be bored. Sometimes I invest energy to sound more girly (in social situations), but it drains my energy quickly; my normal mode is pretty flat and speculative-dry. If I get time, maybe I'll do it, but see, now that I know you're using it to figure out my type, chances are it's not going to be as natural.


EDIT: Here's more info... I've tested as INTP about 98% of the time (in best fit scenarios, my alternate types are ENTP, INFJ, and INFP). And in 1995-6 when I first started studying MBTI, I read all of Keirsey's descriptions. The first one that actually sounded SOMEWHAT like me was INFP, in terms of the fantasy elements and presentation.... and then I read INTP and that was that. None of the others were even close. I felt like I had come home.

But people get more well-rounded over time. I feel like I was much more an INTP cliche at age 25 or so. Nowadays, after 20 more years of development, I exhibit traits across the board. People usually evaluate me based on what 'slice' of me they get in their field of observation.

My biggest difference between me and my daughter is actually how J she is and how not J I am -- I don't get why she needs so much closure on everything, to the point of just being confident in a particular direction, and for the life of her she doesn't understanding how I can live in such ambiguity without being bothered by it and even suggest that certain things (like doubt and faith) can be operational simultaneously.

 

[Montresor]

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah ...

what I'm trying to say, in a sense, is that for every pure ISTP/ pure INTP there are probably 30 hybrids. The line is blurry.

Do you have anything thoughtful to say?

There are no pure ISTP's or pure INTP's. Those are abstract concepts. That is unless you're a hardcore platonist :P

 

[Jennywocky]

There are no pure ISTP's or pure INTP's. Those are abstract concepts. That is unless you're a hardcore platonist :P

I assume he just meant 'traditional/stereotypical/textbook.'

I agree that no one is "pure" anything.

 

[Montresor]

I assume he just meant 'traditional/stereotypical/textbook.'

I agree that no one is "pure" anything.

I meant pure in whatever context is appropriate to the reader. Words have literal meaning.

That being said, I appreciate things like displays of competent thinking. It engages me.

I keep getting back to the Bell Curve meets Venn Diagram idea because in my mind it's the most accurate (ehh VALID); nobody is refuting it, and it rolls the probability dice twice over ...

Something like "INTPs are the ones who are the most likely to perceive data via Ne most often, ISTPs are most likely to perceive data via Se." To do otherwise is strange and unnatural, and the individual will always express a tendency to revert to their comfort zone.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Where on earth did you get this "intuition" from, and why?

You do come off as self-conscious... though I'm not sure how that plays into type.

 

[Reluctantly]

I assume he just meant 'traditional/stereotypical/textbook.'

I agree that no one is "pure" anything.

You know...it's funny how people get so hung up on pure types. Jung explained type neurosis by how much someone repressed their unconscious; someone who is a pure INTP would have a lot to repress and wouldn't be spiritually developed...

...and then there's the Pod People that don't appreciate this, either, as if having a definitive typological category is all that's important to understanding oneself and developing spiritually as a person...

 

[wonkavision]

You do come off as self-conscious... though I'm not sure how that plays into type.

I agree, and I do think it plays into type.

It comes off very NF (and not NT) to me.

But I can't "prove" my intuitions, so I don't expect anyone to take them seriously. I can only state what I see, and only tentatively, because I don't have enough to go by on a forum anyway. I read people much better in person.

Anyway, sorry for the derail, folks. Carry on.

 

[Montresor]

I agree, and I do think it plays into type.

It comes off very NF (and not NT) to me.

But I can't "prove" my intuitions, so I don't expect anyone to take them seriously. I can only state what I see, and only tentatively, because I don't have enough to go by on a forum anyway. I read people much better in person.

Anyway, sorry for the derail, folks. Carry on.

Words of the wise: the "intuitions" of an Ni-dom are generally worth noting, as they are trustworthy (esp. the INFJ), and rarely wrong. I would especially trust an INFJ over an INTJ. Something about Fi - I can't trust them to do the right thing (because I don't know what they think the "right thing" is in any situation)



Edit: jk

 

[Jennywocky]

Edit: jk

Ooohhhhhhh... you're so BAD.

 

[scorpiomover]

Words of the wise: the "intuitions" of an Ni-dom are generally worth noting, as they are trustworthy (esp. the INFJ), and rarely wrong. I would especially trust an INFJ over an INTJ.

I found that Ni-doms are very often wrong. Ni is extremely introverted. An Ni-dom can see something, that makes perfect sense if it was them, only it's not them, and for those others, it really doesn't make sense.

But I found a solution. As long as the Ni-dom HAS to stay on the problem until the whole thing is completely gone, AND if it goes the slightest bit wrong, they will have to pay the price, and fix it on top, they'll keep using their Ni to fix whatever problem come along, due to too much of an introverted perspective. Make them agree in writing to pay you $1000 if they're wrong, and they'll never be wrong with you more than once. They won't let themselves lose that much money twice in a row.

 

[redbaron]

The thing that makes me question whether I'm INTP/ISTP is my general coordination. It's almost a running joke at my workplace where people will just yell my name and then pitch something at me, then giggle when I turn around and catch it.

Also the fact that never miss the bin with a paper ball. I can throw them from almost anywhere and it lands in the bin. General things like that, being good at sports and generally picking up physical activities quickly.

Though with shift work, I'm a lot less disciplined in my exercise. I used to train heaps, just for the sake of being fitter and more coordinated, and I delighted in being adept at sport.

However this could conceivably be a passion/interest for an INTP in my eyes, there's a lot of room for Ne processing in sports.

I also don't care what type I am (or other people), it seems irrelevant to me.

 

[wonkavision]

again, hilarious.

 

[Obsidian]

Personally, I don't really believe in theorizing for the sake of theorizing. In general, if something has no conceivable use, I would prefer not to learn about it. But few things fall into that category.

 

[Montresor]

Personally, I don't really believe in theorizing for the sake of theorizing. In general, if something has no conceivable use, I would prefer not to learn about it. But few things fall into that category.

Interesting point. There are lots of things with no use that some people like to learn about.

The whole "no use" thing is Ti subjectivity at its finest n'est ce pas??

To anyone who reads this: do you classify your sense of humour as "Ti-funny" or "Ne-funny" or "some other kind of funny"??

Spoiler

@wonkavision I see you deleted your whole assessment of the video, probably because this isn't really a typing thread, more of a theorizing thread, but I do have a typing thread.

Since you saw the video and have some input I'd really appreciate it if you could post there ... especially since you think./thought I was INFJ. That's not news to me, but only 2 other people posted in that thread and they both figured ISTP. I've really been tossing around with INFJ for a while (before you saw the vid.)

I had my girlfriend watch some INFJ male videos on YouTube while I was in the shower and she says they seem to "look up and around" a lot while I "look down". The looking up and around is more of a "Pe" type of sacchade while looking straight down is Ti and looking down and away is Ni (this I've sort of gathered from Auburn's threads...)

 

[Obsidian]

This may be heresy here, but I honestly never could see much use for all that quantum physics stuff -- searching for tinier and tinier particles, antiparticles, making miniature black holes down on earth, etc. If someone could point me to one or two practical uses for it, I would have more respect for it. Same goes for pretty much everything. When I was in school, I would always try to figure out the practical use for everything being taught. And if there didn't seem to be one, I would tend to get bored.

I always hated writing papers in college, law school, etc. But now that I do law for real, I actually kind of like it. The difference is that I am actually accomplishing something practical now.

 

[Jennywocky]

This may be heresy here, but I honestly never could see much use for all that quantum physics stuff -- searching for tinier and tinier particles, antiparticles, making miniature black holes down on earth, etc. If someone could point me to one or two practical uses for it, I would have more respect for it.

Ever heard of a GPS? Or an MRI scanner? or a computer chip?

...yeah, I know. it's kind of useless.

 

[Cherry Cola]

This may be heresy here, but I honestly never could see much use for all that quantum physics stuff -- searching for tinier and tinier particles, antiparticles, making miniature black holes down on earth, etc. If someone could point me to one or two practical uses for it, I would have more respect for it. Same goes for pretty much everything. When I was in school, I would always try to figure out the practical use for everything being taught. And if there didn't seem to be one, I would tend to get bored.

I always hated writing papers in college, law school, etc. But now that I do law for real, I actually kind of like it. The difference is that I am actually accomplishing something practical now.

You're right it is heresy. Imagine if everyone had reasoned this way since the stone age, it would still be the stone age.

There is no way to know for sure what insights into the workings of the universe have a practical usesage. Measuring a theory's value based on that one theory's practical usefulness is also quite stupid seeing as one in itself useless theory may lead to another useful theory. There is no theory that has been thought out and created in a vacuum, everything draws on that which has been before. Look at the ancient greeks, were still intellectually feeding of their stuff, yet Plato's Cavern is a useless construct of the mind because it lacks a practical application, amirite?

I humbly suggest reading up on the history of ideas or following your own line of reasoning to where it ends, which is with the creationist separation of technology and science.

 

[Obsidian]

Ever heard of a GPS? Or an MRI scanner? or a computer chip?

It's hard for me to see how those things could be related to all the teeny tiny particles. If someone could credibly state to me that it did relate to those gadgets, then that would obviously help me to be more interested in it. But I think I could only be truly interested in it once I actually saw the connections to the gadgets myself, such that I could focus on those connections while learning about the intellectual material.

 

[scorpiomover]

@Obsidian

It's hard for me to see how those things could be related to all the teeny tiny particles. If someone could credibly state to me that it did relate to those gadgets, then that would obviously help me to be more interested in it. But I think I could only be truly interested in it once I actually saw the connections to the gadgets myself, such that I could focus on those connections while learning about the intellectual material.

GPS is based on radio waves, but in a higher frequency band, whose existence was proved by Maxwell, and is based on electromagnetism. GPS works by matching the distance travelled, to determine the location, and the distance travelled, is determined by the time sent, which is in the message, to the time received. At the speed of light, which is the speed of radio waves, and micro waves, we're talking in very small amounts of time, and in the precise situations that Lorentz Transformations talk about. Einstein's theory of relativity was based on what happens when you get Lorentz Transformations. So effectively, the situation with GPS, is affected by relativity, and the calculations are precise enough, that it will make a big difference to calculating your GPS co-ordinates, if you skip the relativistic correction factor, and you'll put the person in the wrong place.

Semiconductor computer chips are basically tiny circuits. The old method was transistor valves. They worked fine. But semiconductors were much smaller. That meant that they travelled round the circuit much faster, and generated a lot less heat resistance. So the smaller the circuit, the quicker the chip works, and the less power it requires for the same calculation. To give you an example, my BBC Micro had a Motorola 6502 CPU, which worked at 1-2 MHz, while my younger brother's laptop 15 years later, ran at 2 GHz, 1,000 times as fast. However, again, at the atomic level, other things that normally cancel out, become more of a factor, and those are things in quantum physics.

MRI scanners, basically work on the principle that you're mostly water, and water is a conductor, and conductors line up in magnetic fields. You can switch the fields back and forth, such as in an alternating current, and cause the molecules to line up, back and forth, which causes another magnetic current, that can be detected in another, more sensitive coil. Alternatively, with more sensitivity, you can affect the hydrogen and oxygen molecules in water individually, because they too have different charges, for an even better quality image. You can even affect the protons and electrons in the atoms themselves, for an even better quality image. But, when you get down to the atomic and sub-atomic levels, where quantum physics shows up, then those results of quantum physics will also apply to those MRI scans as well, and unless you account for them, your results will be inaccurate.

All 3 are examples of gadgets that isn't based on teeny weeny particles, but where they have been developed for more and more accuracy by dealing with smaller and smaller particles, until they are dealing with teeny weeny particles, where this sort of physics really makes a difference.

Capiche?

 

[Obsidian]

Well, the point of my post was that personally if I can't see the use for something, it is hard for me to be interested in it. Not sure if that is Ne, Ti, or something else.

 

[Ink]

Well, the point of my post was that personally if I can't see the use for something, it is hard for me to be interested in it. Not sure if that is Ne, Ti, or something else.

I think that's a universal trait for intelligent non-sheepish people

 

[scorpiomover]

Well, the point of my post was that personally if I can't see the use for something, it is hard for me to be interested in it. Not sure if that is Ne, Ti, or something else.

On INTJf, INTJs are forever pointing out that is exactly how they feel about the things INTPs do, that INTPs do things that INTs cannot see the use in the things that INTPs do. The thing is, that INTPs there almost never say that they do have a practical use. But they continue regardless. It's either possible that the INTPs here, who agree with the INTJs there, have more in common with the INTJs there, than the INTPs there, either due to MBTI types, or because of cultural differences or because of generational differences.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think that's a universal trait for intelligent non-sheepish people

Except that it's the single greatest indicator, for super-achievment. You don't get to the great heights of achievement and success, by just doing the obvious. Everyone, even most morons, are doing that. And it is obvious, to do what you are sure will help you.

 

[Ink]

Except that it's the single greatest indicator, for super-achievment. You don't get to the great heights of achievement and success, by just doing the obvious. Everyone, even most morons, are doing that. And it is obvious, to do what you are sure will help you.

That's not what I mean, many people do things for the only reason an authority tells them to or because a lot of other people are doing it, like sheep.

 

[scorpiomover]

That's not what I mean, many people do things for the only reason an authority tells them to or because a lot of other people are doing it, like sheep.

True. But I happened to be thinking about this just now.

1) What about all those people who do things because other people are doing them? One of the things about the Boxing Day Tsunami, was that most of the animals near the beach, saw some of the animals running away, and ran with them, and so survived. The humans thought that it was a waste of time to mimic what the other species were doing, and so stayed, and got wiped out. Herd behaviour makes a huge amount of sense. The Central Limit Theorem tells us that if one person does something risky, there is a reasonably high chance that he just got lucky, and if a million people do it, then if it's risky, a lot of them will die, and if it's not risky, very few will die, and you'll know if it's risky or not. Makes a lot of sense. Actually makes a lot more sense than not doing it because other people do it. It's based on solid maths, that has been empirically tested to destruction, and it almost never fails.

2) On the other hand, what about all those people who do things because authorities tell them to? Well, what happens to people who disobey authority? You usually don't get ahead, at least, not while those authorities are authorised to have power over you. Either they make you suffer for disobeying in public, or they simply don't give you the breaks. Even if you totally disagree with those authorities, it still makes sense to at least publicly pretend to do what they want, because they have the power to make your life better or worse, and they have the power to get you to be considered the next Einstein, or to be framed for terrorism and waterboarded. What you do in private, that won't encourage anyone else to break the rules, authorities usually don't care about, and so as long as you look like you follow the rules in public, you get the best of both worlds, what you want, and autonomy when in private, and having what you want, gives you the ability to ensure you can have as much of that privacy as you want.

The only thing you lose, is to shoot your mouth off in public. Having to control what comes out of your mouth, is something one has to learn to do anyway. It's a small price to pay for success and not being waterboarded, isn't it?

So where exactly do you see a good reason NOT to be like those people. Looking at things reasonably, don't they seem like the smart ones?