how to be sure you are intp? bias issues

[Cherry Cola]

I sure everyone Interprets posts based on metadata such as what user wrote it always, whether consciously or not its just the way communication works. Sure some do it to a larger degree than others, IxTPs probably do it less than any other types. Infjs more, SJs even more. I think is an inescapable "is" rather than a matter of "ought", not to say that one shouldnt try not to overdo.

I'm not principally opposed to it though, makes for more efficient communication even if it has drawbacks and annoys Ti'doms. In the case of Spock that wasn't all there was too it either, what he said made little sense apart from it. And the only reason I brought the matter of believability depending on user up was because he discredited obviously superior anecdotal evidence from Jennywocky assuming her and later on me to unreliable sources of information based on his own sense of superiority towards the forum. Sure it pays not to take things on faith, but not if you overdo it so that you end ignoring valid input.

It's not something I'd typically use an argument since its fallacious. Indeed its more of a reminder of the situation rather than argument.

 

[Spocksleftball]

He was too busy being right so unfortunately he didn't have time to realize that while his argument is sound in itself it not only applies to his opponent, but to everyone who dabbles, dabbled or will dabble in MBTI including himself. It's like using dynamite as pesticide. Yeah sure it was nasty seeing those cockroaches crawling around in your house.. but at least back then you a house.

So, the MTBI is a gimp suit? All INTPs are lazy computer geeks? No. All INTPs have underdeveloped Fe. All INTP are socially awkward? Messy? All INTP are what?

1. Yes you are right, you don't know me.
2. Yes you may be friendly with others here you already agree with.
3. Yes it may seem damning the whole MBTI is overboard.

None of these statements disqualify my opinion sir. It is valid since it is an opinion. One presupposition made is that I have experience with exactly one INFP in my life, because I only discuss one that I knew closely. Yet exploring rather than countering isn't the slightest portion of the dialogue. An INTP trait is to not pass judgment until all the data is resolved, yet there is always more data. How is it neither of you care to await further developments before passing judgment? Oh, right, you're actually a J.

We can collectively sit on this forum and contemplate every aspect of every person--their opinions, their experiences, and their references--and still it will be nothing more than a collective of people giving opinions. Some more accepted in the way that a popularity contest might show one person more accepted than another. But never would the unpopular be less valid a person/opinion/idea. We can prove scientifically the world is not flat, but you cannot prove scientifically that a soft science like MBTI is categorically correct in describing people. In fact, I'd consider such a theory mental elitism. It could be said that some types are more inclined to certain behaviors--SJ are more likely to be followers of rules for example--but you couldn't say an ISTJ cannot be intelligent, creative, or devious. That is the realm of individualism that the MBTI as a system discounts.

Now for the kicker, I don't actually care.

I intended my original remarks as humorous and I stand by them thusly.

 

[Spocksleftball]

sorry for double post.

While I appreciate support from people, I'd rather focus on the arguments I made:

- MBTI theory itself suggests that INPs is one of the more likely types to confuse themselves where self-typing is concerned, simply by the nature of the functions involved, and INFP could be expected to edge out INTP since at least the INTP has a more detached perspective vs the INFP need for internal harmony as a balancing mechanism to signal when something is "right."

I don't think I ever disagreed with this statement. I do not disagree with the concept either. I do disagree that close observation over years should be disqualified out of hand as somehow "less" valid than surfing the internet. Do I think I am in the least scientific here? No. Have I stated such? No.

Assuming I am ever serious about a conclusion, experience with 100 strangers vs. one close friend isn't a valid premise for a debate anyway. Now if I had 100 girlfriends and all were INFP with the same propensities, then perhaps I'd publish a paper. But in such an environment, I'm sure I would be too tired and broke to write a paper. So, here we are back again.

 

[pernoctator]

Type isn't a gimp suit that fits all of one type or another.

Yes it is.

 

[Cherry Cola]

"i have the right to my opinion, I dun care, i wasnt serious"

 

[Spocksleftball]

"i have the right to my opinion, I dun care, i wasnt serious"

yes, lets do this right:

"I don't think an INTP can ever be absolutely sure about anything."

If you are still stuck contemplating your INTPness in a subroutine after days, weeks, or years, then the answer is yes you are an INTP. No other type would bother.

In my experience, they tend to question their own validity, not if they test got their type wrong.

Does any of this sound remotely serious? as in definitive? yet here is what I got:

Well, that's nice; but I'm on a few different type sites, which is where I'm drawing my info from, and there seems to be a high proportion of INFPs who act exactly how I said. It's a cliche at this point.

I was trumped by a "cliché". A stereotype. It does rankle when people start with blanket statements as "fact". So I pushed back. Now it has run its course and I am bored with the topic. Like all such internet debates, we can only declare victory in our heads and move along. No one cares in the long run.



But it was nice of you to carry her sword for her.

 

[Jennywocky]

Still trying to decide between the zipper angle vs. chic rubber/plastic...

[bimgx=250]http://www.wildsoundmovies.com/images/pulp_fiction_gimp.jpg[/bimgx] [bimgx=250]http://www.serialmente.com/wp-content/uploads/rubber-man.jpg[/bimgx]

 

[Spocksleftball]

one size fits all

 

[pernoctator]

Does any of this sound remotely serious? as in definitive?

It's not a question of whether anyone was being scientifically precise. Your whole argument was based on hypocrisy.

Namely, how did you conclude samples sizes of 1 and 0, as opposed to 0 and 0?

 

[BigApplePi]

How to be sure you are intp? bias issues

How can I be sure I'm this just because my birth certificate sez so. I could have received a forgery and my parents lied to me. How do I really know? And why didn't they say INTP in this spoiler? Just who is lying here or is it just a slight bias?

Spoiler

Aquarius Characteristics and Profile

(January 20 - February 18)
The symbol for Aquarius is the Water-Bearer, a universal man who is pouring forth water from a jug. This universal man represents the community of mankind. The waters of life flow, like ideas coming from the unrestrained mind. Many people mistakenly think that Aquarius is a water sign, but it is an intellectual air sign. As such, Aquarius can be interested in concepts and ideas. Because of its universality, Aquarius can seem somewhat detached from personal emotions. It's not that you Aquarius don't have feelings; it's just that yours are different from most others. You dance to the beat of a different drummer.

Aquarius can be good communicators as long as you stay in the mental realms. Aquarius are friendly, but can become uncomfortable as you discuss your feelings. In fact, your friends are very important to you and Aquarius might be involved with groups of like-minded people in a social club, a political action group or a public service group.

The Aquarius motto could be Einstein's "Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." And yours is a great spirit, sometimes erratic and sometimes brilliant. You know much about yourself and the world, but knowing everything can be an obstacle to your own happiness. Your practice is twofold. First, you must learn how to separate your crazy notions from what is important. And second, you need to learn how to respond to the opposition you encounter without making it difficult for yourself.

Element: Air

The astrological element of air represents movement. And the most efficient movement between two points is often a thought. Air signs are thinkers. They emphasize the intellect over other functions. With active minds and a good command of language, the air signs are the natural born communicators. They can be light and breezy as the breath of spring, but their words can also carry the power of a gale force wind.

The air of Aquarius can be like the winds after a lightning strike. Large amounts of air are moved around suddenly in such a storm, and that which survives this intensity gets to enjoy the calm after the storm.

Eleventh House: Future

The Eleventh House is sometimes called the House of Friends, Hopes and Dreams. Friends will support our dreams of the future. Here, in the Eleventh House, we're not concerned with our day-to-day responsibilities. Instead, we are thinking about our ideal situation and dreaming of ways to get there. Whether we do or not is less important than keeping the dreams alive.

Key Planet: Uranus

Uranus is the weirdest planet in the solar system. Its north pole faces the Sun and its Moons spin around it backwards. As such, Uranus symbolizes the eccentric and unique things in our lives. It is associated with brilliance -- even if short-lived. And, like lightning, Uranus can release the hidden tensions suddenly and with great immediacy. In fact, Uranus is often the astrological culprit when our lives are turned upside-down. As the key planet of Aquarius, it encourages us to rebel against social injustices and to seek freedom of expression in our lives.

Your Biggest Strength:

Your eclectic way of seeing things

 

[Spocksleftball]

It's not a question of whether anyone was being scientifically precise. Your whole argument was based on hypocrisy.

Namely, how did you conclude samples sizes of 1 and 0, as opposed to 0 and 0?

The data I have is, as stated a set of 1. I have other INFP experiences, though not as involved; and perhaps using anecdotal evidence is tragically flawed to begin with. Who knew it would be so "un-cliche". Perhaps I should have quoted some net guru, damning my own observations as irrelevant. Little did I know how sensitive this forum group is to new and differing points of view. For you my set is 0. For me, any reference to MBTI as factual is tremendously flawed and shows more SJ propensity for following rules than thinking through any sort of reality base theory.

For you, I can be a hypocrit.

 

[Cherry Cola]

MBTI analyzations by SJ:s are sometimes tremendously hilarious I'ma see if I can find some classics.

 

[redbaron]

And the only reason I brought the matter of believability depending on user up was because he discredited obviously superior anecdotal evidence from Jennywocky

Obviously superior how?

Assuming her and later on me to unreliable sources of information.

I did and still am doing the same thing, considering there's no reference. I'm inclined to agree with Jenny's conclusion, yet I don't really have anything beyond my own anecdotal evidence and interpretations of MBTI to verify.

More evidence then, is a positive thing. Whether it's linked to a conclusion I don't agree with - I don't care. I encourage everyone to share their ideas when it comes to MBTI.

Based on his own sense of superiority towards the forum.

Speculative at best. Paranoid at worst. Irrelevant to the discussion either way.

Sure it pays not to take things on faith, but not if you overdo it so that you end ignoring valid input.

Rubbish. One doesn't have to agree with a conclusion to take in information. Especially in MBTI which is so rife with hasty generalizations.

Indeed its more of a reminder of the situation rather than argument.

What situation exactly? If I were new to this forum and used this thread as a reference, I'd come to the same conclusion as Spock - apparently different viewpoints aren't allowed.

 

[Cherry Cola]

But now you are ignoring the fact that said post contained a lot more than what you are zooming in on, sure it looks dumb when you've cherrypicked it like this but that's not showing the whole picture.

Obviously superior why? Let's see long time experience with several INFPs over time vs girlfriend? Hence superior?

Rubbish not. Now you're not even reading what I wrote anymore. Spock wrote that internet experience is rubbish, assumed that people were making hasty generalization based on nothing and that the forum as a whole had such a tendency. When you read through that lens then you are missing out on things.

I already described the situation and that you would've done the same thing isn't really relevant. It seems I have violated some sacred INTP principle by putting forth something you would rather be in denial about, but which is still going on in the background anyway.

And why would I be discouraging Spock to share his ideas anyway? Is challenging equal to discouraging now? Not really and I doubt you think so, you're just stuck on this one segment of my post which I even said wasn't logical nor fair. You're either in denial or naive.

 

[Jennywocky]

So Did Sam ever end up feeling confident as to his INTP type read?

 

[pernoctator]

The data I have is, as stated a set of 1. I have other INFP experiences, though not as involved; and perhaps using anecdotal evidence is tragically flawed to begin with. Who knew it would be so "un-cliche". Perhaps I should have quoted some net guru, damning my own observations as irrelevant. Little did I know how sensitive this forum group is to new and differing points of view. For you my set is 0. For me, any reference to MBTI as factual is tremendously flawed and shows more SJ propensity for following rules than thinking through any sort of reality base theory.

For you, I can be a hypocrit.

I don't think you've answered my question. I just see more of the recurring theme of sarcastic dismissal of anything related to the internet, and arrogant faith in preconception.

I'm asking how your data can be factored in while Jennywocky's can't. Your criteria is vague and you appear to be contradicting yourself. Am I wrong?

 

[Polaris]

1. Spocksleftball did not categorically dismiss everything related to the internet.

2. SLB did not categorically reject JW's data.

3. SLB merely offered hir opinion of one divergent example/outlier(?) This could be tested by accumulating more data.

4. It escalated from there

 

[Base groove]

Why so sensitive about this? Everybody says some bullshit from time to time. Thankfully some folks around here will let you know when that happens.

 

[pernoctator]

1. Spocksleftball did not categorically dismiss everything related to the internet.

2. SLB did not categorically reject JW's data.

3. SLB merely offered hir opinion of one divergent example/outlier(?) This could be tested by accumulating more data.

4. It escalated from there

1 & 2. Actually, yes, he did: "Empirical Internet references are equivalent to a null set".

3. It was not presented as a divergent data point. He was comparing his data against others' data as two distinct sets, and declaring his the more reliable source. In nearly every one of his posts, he's made snide remarks pertaining to the credibility of "the internet" in relation to his personal experience.

 

[Cavallier]

Also, when INTPs extrovert(Ne) they can appear bubbly

I run into this pretty often. I had a very introverted INFP tell me yesterday I was very extroverted. I wanted to shout "I'M FAKING IT"!

 

[redbaron]

But now you are ignoring the fact that said post contained a lot more than what you zoomed in on.

Uh, no. I'm zooming in on the part that I take issue with: which is that arguments from authority are rubbish, especially when it comes to MBTI which is so anecdotal in nature. I don't really care about the whole exchange between SLB and you/Jenny. It's utter rubbish to even bring in a users past posting history and other irrelevant information in an exchange of information.

Defend arguments on their own merit, or don't bother.

Obviously superior why? Let's see long time experience with several INFPs over time vs girlfriend? Hence superior?

And yet, is still entirely contingent on us taking Jenny's word for it.

Rubbish not. Now you're not even reading what I wrote anymore.

Oh, so you didn't post this?

Sure it pays not to take things on faith, but not if you overdo it so that you end ignoring valid input.

This statement is utter garbage. As already stated, whether or not one has a belief in a statement does not prevent one from understanding whatever information is contained. I can read a post and not have any faith that any of it is true, yet still obtain any information contained within.

Belief =/= understanding. You can understand a point without ever agreeing or believing in its validity. Faith comes after any, "valid input" - it's not required to simply receive input.

That you would've done the same thing isn't really relevant.

SLB's perception is actually my point - that he has a point, even though he's, "wrong" in this case. When it comes to MBTI on this forum, people often get a browbeating when putting forth ideas about MBTI - as if MBTI was empirically and definitively supported in some rigid manner - it isn't.

And why would I be discouraging Spock to share his ideas anyway? Is challenging equal to discouraging now?

Challenging arguments within MBTI doesn't necessitate fallacious arguments from authority. Being challenged itself is not discouraging, but being challenged by cliquey behaviour is.

And please, spare me the psycho-analysis.

 

[Cherry Cola]

^Ignoring part of what I wrote in my last post, the most relevant parts too. Cba.

what pernoctator said

 

[Spocksleftball]

I don't think you've answered my question. I just see more of the recurring theme of sarcastic dismissal of anything related to the internet, and arrogant faith in preconception.

I'm asking how your data can be factored in while Jennywocky's can't. Your criteria is vague and you appear to be contradicting yourself. Am I wrong?

There isn't a way to answer your question to your satisfation. You cannot have access to my data set, and the general internet data set is so contradictory as to be unreliable due to inherent bias of the reader. Yes from your perspective you can argue successfully that both sets are zero. From my perspective, my set has a data point of 1.

I suspect I am really assuming from the beginning that everyone on this site is somehow INTP and loath to conclude without further questioning. I am quickly reassessing that mistaken premise. My problem with the internet, and those that have thereby grown up using it as their main data port, is that information generated by prosumers ultimately folds in upon itself by cross referencing each input. Person A posts something reasonably sound but repleat with speculation; Person B posts their version of the same data with some variation or neuance; Persons C...Z continue the cycle but gradually begin cutting and pasting segmnets of all predicessors as reference material. By time we get close to Z, the information is virtually homogenious and taken as factual by casual browsers. How can anyone, especially an NT not question this process as valid or not? Is the world flat? This can be tested. Are INTPs lax computer nerds with no social skills? The data cannot be tested.

 

[Base groove]

Is the world flat? This can be tested. Are INTPs lax computer nerds with no social skills? The data cannot be tested.

The world is relatively flat until I figure out how to make astronomical calculations.

 

[Base groove]

Point being - eventually there will be a way to be sure of your type but not until it's deemed a worthwhile/profitable endeavor. Adequate research with brain scans would all but objectify it. (CAT, fMRI, EEG, PET etc...). I don't see this getting any public funding at this point though as apparently the 'scientific' opinion is that all typology - particularly those based on Jung - is basically imaginary.

 

[Spocksleftball]

Point being - eventually there will be a way to be sure of your type but not until it's deemed a worthwhile/profitable endeavor.

So freak'n true. Unlike developing drugs for male erections*, typology has no ultimate purpose in the current culture. Funding comes with profit, and knowing the douche in the next cubicle is an ESFJ makes the company not one red cent.

If you were to have a company where all the ENTP sat around a generated ideas, the INTP developed theories, and the ISTP pulled a leaver to make the wigits--you would still have some working, some goofing off, and some involved in interoffice politics. Production would not increase, and in fact it may decrease. If someone has total job satisfaction, where is the motivation to improve, get ahead, or strive to be better?

Wow if all I had to do all day was sit around and gather data and think, I'd be in heavan; I wouldn't get a damn thing done, but I sure would be happy



*as opposed to female erections

 

[pernoctator]

There isn't a way to answer your question to your satisfation. You cannot have access to my data set, and the general internet data set is so contradictory as to be unreliable due to inherent bias of the reader. Yes from your perspective you can argue successfully that both sets are zero. From my perspective, my set has a data point of 1.

I suspect I am really assuming from the beginning that everyone on this site is somehow INTP and loath to conclude without further questioning. I am quickly reassessing that mistaken premise. My problem with the internet, and those that have thereby grown up using it as their main data port, is that information generated by prosumers ultimately folds in upon itself by cross referencing each input. Person A posts something reasonably sound but repleat with speculation; Person B posts their version of the same data with some variation or neuance; Persons C...Z continue the cycle but gradually begin cutting and pasting segmnets of all predicessors as reference material. By time we get close to Z, the information is virtually homogenious and taken as factual by casual browsers. How can anyone, especially an NT not question this process as valid or not? Is the world flat? This can be tested. Are INTPs lax computer nerds with no social skills? The data cannot be tested.

You still have not defined any criteria that can be applied to both sets, consistently / without contradicting yourself, and result in one being 0 and the other being 1.

Even if we assume that persons B through Z are all parroting information from person A, there is still the single data point of person A. That's a worst case scenario of 1-1, not 0-1, with (>1)-1 being more likely. How, other than arrogance, did you conclude that your own opinion is not "reasonably sound but replete with speculation", compared to the first set? And what gave you the idea that JW is a "casual browser"?

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm not sure why I'm getting dragged into this after leaving the conversation two days ago, it's rather annoying to have everyone talking about me as a reference point and mispresented.

I've been reading and/or involved in MBTI discussions since 1995 and own/have read various source materials from a variety of writers -- some of which I found deficient, others were more sensible -- including some of the MBTI source material used by the authorized MBTI test providers. If I cared, I think I could become an authorized test provider; but I just don't care to do so. This doesn't mean I'm correct about everything I think, but it does mean I bring a lot of varied context to the table when I critique a particular post or idea. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think the critique of how personality theory on the Internet is relevant -- there IS a lot of shit and hearsay that gets dragged into type discussions and is one reason why I rarely particular in discussion of celebrity types (for example), it's just a waste of time -- but I think an issue here is that the inherent skepticism by one poster is being misapplied in a particular circumstance to the degree of criticizing people's types without even really knowing the people in question, which other people are rightfully having an issue with... but still, nothing is getting resolved. It's just a shitfest at this point which just happens to have enough valid generalized criticisms of Internet MBTI methodology to confuse the issue and prevent resolution.

This wasn't even a serious type-discussion thread, so criticizing it to the rigor one would criticize an official, professional MBTI discussion just seems like overkill to me... just like using an Unsharp mask on a 72dpi photo expecting the clarity to improve when the original snapshot wasn't that granular to begin with. This was a casual, not professional, discussion that suddenly has become representative of all the methodological abuses that one has experienced on the Internet.

 

[pernoctator]

This wasn't even a serious type-discussion thread, so criticizing it to the rigor one would criticize an official, professional MBTI discussion just seems like overkill to me...

See post #59. No one's imposing rigorous standards. But I do expect an individual to fairly apply his own standards to himself and others.

 

[Jennywocky]

See post #59. No one's imposing rigorous standards. But I do expect an individual to fairly apply his own standards to himself and others.

I had seen that entry, and I wasn't necessarily referring to you with my last post.'

To summarize, I'm left thinking this thread has merely become a focal point for some deeper gripes people had already possessed.

 

[Steven Gerrard]

I wanted to shout "I'M FAKING IT"!

That feel all day at work and everywhere.

 

[Spocksleftball]

Even if we assume that persons B through Z are all parroting information from person A, there is still the single data point of person A.

Ah, I see I missed a step. You don't know who person A is after awhile, so you cannot define the datapoint to any greater degree than someone elses anicdotal supposition.

How, other than arrogance, did you conclude that your own opinion is not "reasonably sound but replete with speculation", compared to the first set?

None; arrogance to argue a point simply to learn from the discussion is in itself a motivation. From my vantage point, a close observation gave me the ability to conclude that the INFP was indeed within her type "parameters" and acting in obvious ways. I can only conclude that her actions were consisten, though not perhaps defining, of the characteristics. Your conclusion may vary, and apparently it does.

And what gave you the idea that JW is a "casual browser"?

Is there truely an opposite to casual browser of the internet? Is there an intermediate browser potential? Are there browsers that are paid to browse? Professional browswers? You tell me how to define someone on a site dedicated to infotainment, and I will ahear to your definition...if it fits.

 

[pernoctator]

you cannot define the datapoint to any greater degree than someone elses anicdotal supposition.

This is exactly the point. It's someone else's anecdotal supposition versus your anecdotal supposition. Yet instead of recognizing these as equally worthless, you were explicitly elevating yourself above the rest. And don't forget that this is a worst-case scenario wherein only one person in the entire "prosumer" population has an original thought. In reality, we know that is nowhere near accurate, and the probability that someone's opinion formed over 15 years was entirely informed by regurgitated bullshit less substantial than your experience with your ex is exceptionally low.

 

[Spocksleftball]

This is exactly the point. It's someone else's anecdotal supposition versus your anecdotal supposition. Yet instead of recognizing these as equally worthless, you were explicitly elevating yourself above the rest. And don't forget that this is a worst-case scenario wherein only one person in the entire "prosumer" population has an original thought. In reality, we know that is nowhere near accurate, and the probability that someone's opinion formed over 15 years was entirely informed by regurgitated bullshit less substantial than your experience with your ex is exceptionally low.

We'll you saying so doesn't make it so. I elevated my data point from my perspective. If you were observing me observing my x, and both were in view continually, you would still not have the same data point as me. You perspective would be different. Same with you observing any third party analog via the net. You would have a data point, sure, and it would contain the same data from your vantage point. Since I cannot view your observation, I must take on faith it's reliability. I refuse. You must take on faith my perspective conclusion or not. You refuse. This point have been made.

There are many generators of data A. Not all data A are the same. Without empirical confirmation through rigorous scientific duplication, a standard for determining which data A is relevant or reliable is not possible. If all data A are not the same, and there are no standards with which to test all data A points, then no data A are reliable. The effect of all data points [b...z] based upon a set of unreliable data points A is an exponential divergence from any possible reliable, yet unidentified, data point A.

 

[pernoctator]

We'll you saying so doesn't make it so. I elevated my data point from my perspective. If you were observing me observing my x, and both were in view continually, you would still not have the same data point as me. You perspective would be different. Same with you observing any third party analog via the net. You would have a data point, sure, and it would contain the same data from your vantage point. Since I cannot view your observation, I must take on faith it's reliability. I refuse. You must take on faith my perspective conclusion or not. You refuse. This point have been made.

This subjective truth BS is getting tiresome. If I must take on faith that your perspective is conclusive, then so must you. When you find that your conclusion is starkly at odds with a large body of others, the non-arrogant response would be to reevaluate.

Without empirical confirmation through rigorous scientific duplication, a standard for determining which data A is relevant or reliable is not possible.

Correct. This means the reliability is undefined. Undefined is not the same as null. What you have is a set of possible reliabilities, with which yours intersects at the lower end (but not the lowest possible point). Since a lower reliability than yours is possible, you are choosing to accept yours, ignoring the fact that it's highly improbable.

 

[Base groove]

I am rooting for both of you,

Well,
no.

Not really.