Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
My mode is:
*NT* 63%
*NF* 26%
*ST* 8%
*SF* 1%

Votes: 215

 Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 10, 2001
 Comments:

The Myers-Briggs personality test stems from the pioneering work of the psychologist Carl Jung. It was he who first introduced the idea that all humans have a psychological type, but it was not until Katherine C. Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers joined the research some years later that our modern understanding of the personality types was born.

Before reading this article, I urge all readers to take the test, so they can see where they fit into the societal hierarchy I outline below.

future

More stories about Future
Global Warming: A Proactive Solution (Part 2 of 2)
Milosevic, Sovereignty, and the War against Terrorism
Real Men use Realdolls?
2001: A Historical Odyssey
A final solution to the problem of Evil
C++ Should Be The Only Programming Language

More stories by
bc

Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
The British Empire - Why it was so good.
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Kill Yr Idols: Tiger Woods
Models - Stormtrooping superbitches of the Fashion Industry
Don't look at me.
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Why America needs laws against flag burning.
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
Football & Fascism -- Prima Donnas and the Superman
A Day on the Town
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
Real Men use Realdolls?
George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns
Why I want to be an American Citizen

We now know that every human being can be categorically placed in any one of sixteen distinct personality types. These personality types depend on four qualities, which I outline below:

Flow of Energy E or I, Extroverted or Introverted. How do we recieve the important part of our stimulation? From within ourselves or from external sources? Is the dominant function focused internally or externally?
How we take in Information N or S, iNtuitive or Sensing. Do we trust our 5 senses, or do we prefer to rely on instincts?
How we prefer to make decisions T or F, Thinking or Feeling. Logic and objective consideration, or personal and subjective value systems?
The basic day to day lifestyle we prefer J or P, Judging or Perceiving. Organised and purposeful or flexible and diverse?

We can see that it is dead easy to tell which one of these somebody belongs to. The delightful thing about Myers-Briggs is how easy it is to classify people - one can just talk to someone for a few hours, and tell fairly quickly which of the above categories they fall into. What is interesting is the natural roles each type tends to play. It is important for any manager, government official, parent or lover to be thoroughly grounded in all aspects of the Myers-Briggss personality system. From a management perspective, one can create harmonious working groups of people by considering the proper station of each type, and in one's personal life one can easily predict the behaviour of others.

It is such a wonderful method of prescribing and boxing in the behaviour of human beings, that properly armed with the knowledge and a suitable INTP to do the mathematical grunt work one can easily predict and control the behaviour of large numbers of people. Although we should focus on using Myers-Briggss tests for this, we should also incorporate related disciplines such as Chinese astrology (not fake Western astrology), numerology and graphology. It seems to me that we should encourage our government, companies and families to reorganise all social activity on the basis of Myers-Briggs personality types. So much unhappiness is caused because people don't get along with each other, because sensitive and brilliant FP's are paired with callous and judgemental TJ's, or nurturing, affirmitive FJ's with cold, mechanical TP's. All personality types have a natural partner, and tend to get on well with some other personality types and less well with others. All the strife in our society could be solved at a stroke if everyone knew their own type, and if everyone was nurtured and engaged with the right people to do the right job and marry the right person, guided by the omniscience of some centralised personality database. We could forge a new and better society, and so easily!

Here I present a schema for how things should be organised, and where every personality type should be placed in the grand scheme.

At the bottom - INTP, INTJ. Here we should have all the INT's - that is to say, the iNtuitive Thinkers, be they judging or perceiving. These types tend to care very little about other human beings, as they value logic and are very cold. They live in thir own mathematical world, removed from all human concerns. The INTPs are the lowest of the low, and can also be quite dangerous. They are best left to work on simple tasks that all the other types hate, as they have very high boredom thresholds and can be left to work on boring columns of figures, or program computers, or work on assembly lines, without any real personal problems. They enjoy being ordered around and told what to do, and as long as their orders don't involve interacting with other people they are very happy. These types are very autistic in nature, and like most idiot savants they can sometimes show a remarkable facility for impressive but ultimately useless tasks, such as typesetting in TeX or memorising Star Trek dialogue. These types tend to look quite thin and pasty, and take little care over their personal appearance. They often have small, peering eyes and tend to be quite short and ugly. Spots are common. They do not make suitable romantic mates for anyone, and are really best kept away from the opposite sex.

Second rung up - ENTP, ENTJ. These types also tend to be rationalists, but do at least engage with other people. Unfortunately, then tend to try and control others, and have little in the way of empathy despite their outgoing natures. They are best used to keep the INTPs and INTJs in their place. This type make excellent police officers, regimental seargant majors, and disciplinarians of all sorts. Because they don't care about other people, and only like to abuse them, it is important that they are not given important leadership roles, but still a good idea to give some sort of leadership role nonetheless. Ideally they should be put in charge of the bottom groups, as this will allow the ENT*s to feel they are in command of someone, and the INT*s are so pathetic and withdrawn anyway that they won't care or even notice that they are being abused. ENT*'s tend to have big chins and pronounced foreheads, somewhat like Neanderthals. They are easily spotted.

Towards the Middle - ENFJ, ENFP. The ENF*'s have good people skills, and are very people orientated. Females make very good HR managers, nurses, courtesans and prostitutes, and males of this type can excell in the medical profession, serving their betters. Although they tend to be very sensitive, they put themselves before others so it is OK to treat them badly, though only up to a point. Because they love people so much, they tend to be very unfaithful, and they are very good at making people feel guilty. These types tend to be somewhat normal looking, but often have bad taste in clothes. They often have unusually small heads.

The Middle Classes - ISTJ, ISTP. The ISTJ's are quiet and like security. Theywork very hard and have good powers of concetration, whilst the ISTP's tend to be quite practical and even, when threatened, risk taking. These types make excellent soldiers and officers, and ideally all members of the army should come from these groups. Solid and dependable, and plain looking, they are like 1950's tweed clothed Britons in terms of their stoic, unimaginative determination to overcome.

Rising on Up - ISFJ, ISFP. At last we come to types that do not promote or create violent situations. The ISF*s are very peaceful and hate conflict. For this reason, they should be placed in charge of all those I have already mentioned, wherever possible. They should be teachers and also research the hard sciences. Unlike the INTP's, they can be trusted with the responsibility of science, for they will not develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or even technologies that can be perverted to create them, their ethics and hatred of conflict is so great. These types tend to have square heads and bulky bodies, and like to dress conservatively.

Lower Upper Classes - ESFJ, ESFP, INFJ. The first two types are superb, for they are wonderfully charismatic. They also tend to be rather good looking, and their radiance inspires all whom it touches. They love newness and fun, and so are good to keep around as entertainers. Actors, artists, and circus performers should be drawn from them. The INFJ's are also very good, and although they tend to be individualistic rather than team players, they should most definitely be valued for their high intelligence.

Ruling Class - ESTP, ESTJ. This type are very good at sports, very good looking, outgoing, sociable, and can always get a date. They are natural leaders, and the other types tend to be jealous of them. If they are closely bound in the workplace with ESF*s though, then the other types will come to accept them thanks to the overpowering combination of good looks and charisma. Many of this type tend to play college football and suchlike at High Schools, and then move on to become highly successful corporate businessmen. They tend to have lovely hair, blue eyes and fair skin.

The Apex - INFP. This type deserves a mention all of its own, it is truly the most advanced, good looking, and caring of all the types. It's value system is so advanced, and its empathy so pronounced, that members of this type should be forced to become leaders, against their own natural modesty. INFP's are really a sort of super-race, seperated off from other mere mortals.

I believe that if we organise our society with this natural hierarchy in mind, social and racial disharmony, hatred, loneliness, and depression will be eliminated for all time. For each according to his needs will be the watchword of this new world, and with the intelligent, feeling and empathetic INFP's in charge of it all we can be sure that such a seemingly autocratic society won't suffer from totalitarian injustice of any sort. Truly, we have the power, with a just a few simple adjustments to how we think of organising such things as marriage, friendship, and private enterprise, to eliminate all unhappiness forever. What are we waiting for?

(NB The author is an INFP himself, and so this article is guaranteed to be unbiased)



       
Tweet

As an INFP, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Anonymous Coward on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:18:05 PM PST
I'd just like to say that I'd always hated Meyers-Briggs and have never cared much for any kind of typing system which I've always considered superficial at best. They blur our uniqueness in a way that is suitible for market researchers, racists, and anyone who thinks they understand more than they do.

That said, I took the test because I wondered if my hate would change through participation, and because I hadn't taken it in a long time and so didn't know my "sign."

And yet my hate persists. Am I judging despite my 'P' rating? I found the questions too vague to answer much of the time. Do I like such-and-such? Well, sometime, sometimes not. And so forth. And yet my intuition tells me meyers-briggs is fascist. And my feeling is one of despair. Were I more of an I, I would, perhaps not bother responding in the first place.
-- Support the home page homeless.

Even more fun: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:29:45 PM PST
I took the test three times in a row, and got different results each time; and it's not like I did this on purpose. I honestly tried to answer questions honestly each time. The problem is that those questions can't really be answered in a "yes/no" fashion. (Like, "I feel uncomfortable in crowds." WTF?)


--
Peace and much love...




You must have high T (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by bc on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:46:30 PM PST
Though I hesitate to make hasty conclusions when I don't know you much, I would suggest that you have a high T or Thinking preference, and so are bringing rather too much logic and scepticism to bear on this test.

I humbly suggest you get in touch with your feeling side a bit more, to offset the rationalism of the high T.


♥, bc.

Ha. (none / 0) (#19)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:53:46 PM PST
Dude, that's too funny. Anybody who knows me even passingly would have a field day with your comment. Just too funny, because I'm just about as anti-rational as you can get. Seriously, you could not have been more off-base in your judgement.


--
Peace and much love...




No (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by bc on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 02:18:54 PM PST
It doesn't mean you are a mathematician or that you use formal logic a lot, just that you have a rational mindset. You are quite clearly of that stamp - someone with high 'F' would never describe themselves as an 'anti-rationalist'.

You hate rationalism in a rational manner.


♥, bc.

Actually, (none / 0) (#39)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 10:13:21 PM PST
all of the times I've taken the test, I've gotten high "F" values.

P.S. No, I don't have a "rational mindset". Seriously, that's just plain bullshit. Sorry.


--
Peace and much love...




None dare call it reason (none / 0) (#123)
by Anonymous Coward on Mon Dec 31st, 2001 at 05:30:36 PM PST
You hate when you're called rational, don't you? It's like an insult. And yet you rationally argue back. You hate me for saying this, don't you?
-- Support the home page homeless.

 
Re: You must have high T (none / 0) (#110)
by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 02:00:59 PM PST
Maybe you need to get more into your logical side. Again, you have not explained to me what is wrong with logic and rationality.


 
lowest of the low (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by alprazolam on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:10:05 PM PST
(Like, "I feel uncomfortable in crowds." WTF?)

Huh? Why is that hard. The answer is obviously "Yes, unless I'm severely intoxicated."

Now a question like You often feel hot or You often become totally absorbed in your work are a bit more difficult, and don't seem very useful.


hot flash (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by johnny ambiguous on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 08:07:58 PM PST
> Now a question like You often feel hot...

I don't get it. What if you live in Florida? Of course you feel hot for months on end! Does that mean climate creates personality? And if so, what kind of personality? If you answer "yes" what horrible state of disfunction does that necessarily imply for you? I can't afford to move, I have a family, I'm afraid to look! Don't tell me either.

Yours WD "sweating" K - WKiernan@concentric.net


Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

 
Us NT's might as well kill ourselves (none / 0) (#128)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 12:07:35 PM PST
Quote "Progress is guranteed, throw enough INT*'s at the problem, and it will inevitably be solved, just like the farmer spreading seed on fertile ground."

I'm sure your system will fall apart in no time if its success is so dependent on NT's whom you consider most inferior.


 
Pop-psy. (none / 0) (#12)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:25:56 PM PST
Psychology for Dummies.


--
Peace and much love...




Re: Psychology for dummies. (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:51:09 PM PST
...and the government. The test is used for security clearance screening for agencies like the Dept. of Energy. A waste of an afternoon for a pretty blue badge if you ask me.



Yeah, but... (none / 0) (#20)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:56:00 PM PST
...I honestly don't care what they do in totalitarian societies. (Like the U.S.) Just like I don't care what tests you need to take to join the Taliban.


--
Peace and much love...




alright buddy... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 09:49:27 PM PST
Some of us have had enough of your attitude.

I don't care who you are, don't talk bad about the United States of America.

In case your sorry Russian behind has forgotten: We won the cold war. And we could do it again any time we want to.

Keep that in mind the next time you feel the urge to say something stupid.




Like I care. (none / 0) (#38)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 10:04:31 PM PST
Seriously, "buddy", I really don't care what goes on behind closed doors in totalitarian societies; likewise, I don't really care which fascist superpower-of-the-decade is trying to "kick my ass" -- you won't be the first, and you certainly won't be the last.


--
Peace and much love...




Just out of interest... (none / 0) (#45)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 03:08:43 AM PST
Which fascist superpowers have tried to kick your ass in the past? Was it a personal ass-kicking attempt, or as part of a more widespread ass-kicking initiative?


So far only two. (none / 0) (#46)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 04:01:32 AM PST
The xUSSR and the United States of Amerika. Of course, a fascist superpower cannot exist unless it is perpetually involved in massive ass-kicking of everyone; regular people like me just get in the way.


--
Peace and much love...




The truth about fascism (none / 0) (#47)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 04:11:17 AM PST
The way fascism works, usually regular people are the ones who carry the fascists to power. It's pretty easy to conclude that if you are living in a fascist state, it's your own stupid fault, and the ass-kicking you get is the ass-kicking you had coming to you.


Like I care. (none / 0) (#48)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:11:51 AM PST
If I'm having my ass kicked at the moment, chances are I won't be pondering the philosophical and social implications of fascism.


--
Peace and much love...




Bend over (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:20:07 AM PST
If you're getting your ass kicked, it's because you're a feeler. If you were a thinker, you'd have figured out how to stop the beatings and taken control of your situation. The resistance is formed not from a bunch of art-loving, poetry-reading pansies, but from machine-making champions of strength and justice. It's your government, change it.


Yeah, brilliant. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:37:44 AM PST
And then the machine-gun toting Champions of Freedom will establish a People's Dictatorship (or maybe Protectorate, that sound better) to ensure that fascism will never happen again. And of course, they'll set up an extensive network of intelligence operatives to find out and punish enemies of Democracy. It's probably OK to just kill them outright -- since they don't respect Democracy, they obvously don't mind spending their life in jail. I applaud your plan -- it is certainly a brilliant and fresh idea. (*sarcasm*, for the g**ks among us.)

P.S. Seriously, though -- poetry probably played a bigger part in the downfall of the Soviet Union than other things put together. Don't underestimate it.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Your thinking is flawed (none / 0) (#73)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 04:40:00 PM PST
Considering Martin Heidegger was a both an important thinker and a prominent supporter of Hitler, the case can hardly be made that thinkers are better than feelers at eliminating fascism. You yourself strike me as exactly the sort of person that fascists are most able to deceive into aiding their rise to power. An INTJ, I assume?


 
huh? (none / 0) (#28)
by alprazolam on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:12:15 PM PST
The test is used security clearance screening

No, it's not. Not for actual DoD clearance anyway. Don't know wtf kind of stupid clearance the DoE requires.


DOE clearances (none / 0) (#31)
by claudius on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:55:26 PM PST
The DOE runs the nuclear weapons labs, so they have plenty of need for clearances among their employees. And yes, AC is right. In some cases, the test is used to get DOE security clearances--specifically, the "accelerated access programs" for getting a Q clearance (DOE equivalent to Top Secret DoD) can require the personality test in addition to a polygraph test.



 
Help with Myers-Briggs Rating (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:26:06 PM PST
I took the test, answered all the questions, and clicked the "SCORE IT" button. The result I got back read as follows:

"If I ever meet you, I WILL KICK YOUR ASS"

Could someone please help me interpret what this means?


Welcome to the club. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:30:22 PM PST
It just means you're an asshole.


--
Peace and much love...




 
INTP (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 01:43:03 PM PST
And so FUCK YOU.

Come and get some you wishy washy emotional piece of third rate dogshit. Just because I use rationalism rather than your touchy feely emotional claptrap you should get on bended knee and repeatedly lick my anus thanking me between slurps for deigning to notice you. If it doesn't 'feel' right I will show you how to rationalize things via the tried and true method of shoving a Luger barrell down your throat and asking the question again.

Put my ass on the bottom rung and I'll inflict upon you disharmony, hatred, loneliness, and depression the likes of which God himself has never seen.


Behold a typical INTP (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by bc on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 02:52:44 PM PST
See the callousness, the hatred of society, the aggressive nature, the desire to put guns down people's throats.

A typical INTP, then, who is best kept on the bottom rung where he can benefit from the guidance of those more emotionally aware and with a more developed ethical system.

That INTPs are allowed to run amock doing as they will is one of the downfalls of our society, IMHO.


♥, bc.

Behold... (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:54:00 AM PST
...cluelesness. That wooshing sound is the previous post going right over your head.


 
More Ignorance (none / 0) (#106)
by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 12:07:55 PM PST
I was very apalled by your post. You seem to harbor a lot of prejudice in your postings. You accuse us of not having feelings? How about you consider the feelings of INTPs like me before you post inflammatory remarks about us. Your post was very disgraceful, very prejudiced, and not at all rooted in reality. Your post hurt the feelings of many INTPs and INTJs, not only for the inflammatory remarks you posted about us, but also because you posted a lot if misinformation about us. I would like for you to apologize to all of us.


 
what personality type are you if (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 02:08:04 PM PST
after 4 questions you think "fuck this is tiresome" and click on your kuro5hin shortcut instead of finishing the test? I know someone like that. I hope it means females are particularly receptive to such a personality type.


 
Wow (none / 0) (#23)
by Observer on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 02:19:24 PM PST
If only there were a superpower nation which mirrored that social structure. Utopia would surely be upon us, and the glittering shine from the cities would radiate bliss which would break the molecular bonds of smog. Then, everyone could hug each other and impart the capacity of telepathy, whereby we would all become as smart as the smartestest person in the whole wide world. After that, we can use our newfound powers to teleport to alien worlds to teach them of the wonders and ideas which we have refined over the millenia, because we'd all be such a good and homogenous people.

I'm left wondering if the same impact would have been rendered if the order from the bottom to ruling class were reversed.


 
INTJ (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by claudius on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 02:32:47 PM PST
You probably should leave social engineering to the "Mastermind" type (INTJ). It is clear from the rhetoric you proffer that as a lowly INFP you lack the mental discipline and organizational acumen to plan anything so ambitious.

Trust me. I am a scientist.



 
*shudder* (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:13:29 PM PST
I looked at a few of the profiles for some of the personalities you picked. The Apex, the INFP, you give great honor to them considering in the description of those people it says they are basically very unsure of themselves. You don't want someone like that as the leader of your society. You want someone who is confident about what they are doing. You also don't want someone who is always trying to please others because eventually everything will become so compromised that no one will get along and agree with the things that have happened.
Just look at the titles that are given to the different types...
The ESFP -- The Performer
The ISFP -- The Composer
The ESTP -- The Promoter
The ISTP -- The Crafter
The ESFJ -- The Provider
The ISFJ -- The Protector
The ESTJ -- The Supervisor
The ISTJ -- The Inspector
The ENFP -- The Champion
The INFP -- The Healer
The ENFJ -- The Teacher
The INFJ -- The Counselor
The ENTP -- The Inventor
The INTP -- The Architect
The ENTJ -- The Field Marshall
The INTJ -- The Mastermind
I don't know about you but I wouldn't want the Architect to be the very bottom of society... Or the Inventor and the Field Marshall in the Second Rung up. And Teachers already don't get enough credit as is. They deserve better than almost middle. What about Champions? Aren't they the ones people idolize are they too only fitting for below middle class? I could go on and on. There is no way to set different personality types in different ranks of society.
I shudder at the thought of this every happening to our society. Those who are natural leaders should be the leaders, not those that have no clue how to lead.
And as for "The author is an INFP himself, and so this article is guaranteed to be unbiased" is total crap. Everyone is biased in some fashion or another especially when it comes to personalities.
I myself am very biased, I wouldn't want to be at the top myself but being of one of the Natural leader classes I'd rather see one of my fellows at the top rather than some fool who is an INFP.


Architecture is a failed discipline (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 04:19:13 PM PST
Have there been any great buildings built in America since 1970? I'm afraid not. The magnificence and originality of design in the fifties and sixties has been suborned by corporatist pragmatism. Modern buildings are designed to maximise profit. The sides of modern skyscrapers are zig-zagged to allow the maximum number of high rent corner offices. There is no room in this occupation for artistry anymore. Modern architecture is drawn more from the World Trade Center than from the Chrysler Corp. Building.

This is the fault of the architects. Architecture once attracted people with a vision, and an aesthetic sense that lead them to construct buildings that defined their cities. Modern architecture attracts would-be artists and designers with delusions of grandeur and no common sense. These INTPs are easily coopted by their corporate masters. Having no strongly developed will or ethics, they easily abandon their half formed ideals and toe the corporate line. Modern architects willingly build what the company wants, with not a trace of originality. Design decisions are made by mid-level MBAs, with no artistic pretensions, but an overwhelming desire to work in big glass buildings.

The architects of the fifties and earlier may have been great artists of construction, but modern architects are feeble creatures of self-obsessed greed. They are engineers masquerading as artists.


Suborned? (1.00 / 2) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 12:44:01 AM PST
Get a dictionary, you pretentious wanker!


 
Not the fault of architects. (none / 0) (#89)
by jin wicked on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:32:08 PM PST
Your gripes are with a capitalist system where people with talent are driven to do this kind of thing to survive. Architects design what the people that pay them want. If skyscrapers were more artistic years ago, it is because they were newer at the time and architects were given more liberty to design buildings as they pleased.

It's no different from a talented art student graduating and then draining all his talent making billboards for Chlorox bleach. If you want them making art for the sake of art (or good looking buildings for the sake of it), then support changes or a better system that will allow them to do that. Not everyone is able or willing to suffer and/or die so that you have something prettier to look at.

I personally think they do a pretty good job in many cases, managing to balance their own visions with the guidelines given to them by their employers. Everyone has to eat.


"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

 
Standards (none / 0) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 05:53:28 PM PST
You seem to forget that Architects are held to certian standards and codes. If their ideas do not fit into the codes and standards their idea is useless. You can't build something that could prove unsafe in certain situations even if it is an amazing design. You try and create beautiful and amazing things when you have to follow a bunch of rules. You see while they may be creative, they can only be creative to a certain point otherwise they jump outside the standards and are told no, you can't do that.


 
the mastermind has emotions (none / 0) (#95)
by psych wanderer on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 01:53:32 PM PST
As an INTJ myself I find it hard to see myself in the description of the society originally posed. I work in the Psychology profession helping young offenders sort their lives and their often horrific experiences out so that they can function and to some extent - be happy people - as much as anyone can. Is this a sign of non-feeling? or of uselessness to society? I think not, I would rather have someone who is intiuitive any day before soemone who works only from plans/rotas/organization principles. The mastermind has feelings also.


psych wanderer
http://notorious-scifi.com
"The thing I miss the most is my mind"

 
Ahem... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by xingxtians on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 12:37:35 PM PST
"I'd rather see one of my fellows at the top rather than some fool who is an INFP"?


I'm an INFP but at least I got the joke.


 
Thoughts (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:26:22 PM PST
You seem to have a lot of major misconceptions about Myers-Briggs types and Jungian psych functions. Feeling, which is different from emotions, is a rational function, and Intuition is not instinct. Also it is not possible to tell what type people are from talking with them for just a few hours. If you think you can you are stereotyping. There is no hierarchy in typologies because no type is inherently better than any other. People might LIKE certain types better than other types, but that says more about people themselves than about the types.

And by the way, probably at least 50% of the people who test as INFP aren't actually introverted feeling types with auxiliary intuition. Although for some people it's "nice" to believe themselves to be INFP.

Carl Jung who thought up these psychological types was an introverted intuitive thinker himself. If you think introverted NTs are so inferior maybe you shouldn't be using this system.


 
why do i read this site? (0.00 / 2) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 03:59:05 PM PST
if i thought the poster was serious, i'd be kind of upset.

i suppose i keep coming back for the comedy. people who are like our dear poster, are usually quite incapable of spreading their hate from their padded cells.


 
Your system is not maintainable (5.00 / 4) (#34)
by sdem on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 05:17:53 PM PST
OK, so perhaps it is maintainable over several generations, but it would be much less efficient than some of the alternatives.

Quite possibly one of the most efficient ways to maintain a system such as this would be to calculate quotas for each type (i.e. how many of each there are), and regulate births to reflect these numbers. For example, it would probably be wise to allow the lower rungs to breed like rabbits, as there are many dreary and menial tasks that must be performed to keep this nation running in good order.

Now, I'm certainly not one to suggest that the INT*s should come into contact with the opposite sex (that could be disasterous), but rather that they be cloned or otherwise artificially fertilized and incubated.

Which leads me to another point, which is that the act of giving birth, as it stands, is not only incredibly messy and disgusting, but it also causes quite a drain on our nation's resources. Think of all the ice cream and avocados that we would be able to stockpile if we didn't have tons of pregnant women running around and eating everything in sight? It also causes huge cuts in corporate productivity, because as current laws stand, companies are required to give maternity leave to their female employees, time that said employees could be spending generating revenue for our nation's economy. I propose that we do away with pregnancy all together and instead artificially fertilize eggs and "grow" fetuses until they reach maturity, at which point they join the outside world. This would have the dual benefit of eliminating maternity leave and creating more jobs for the people who would work for the privately-owned labs where this would take place.

Moreover, I believe that we can't really rely too heavily on the natural course of events to create the right number of people in the correct amounts, so I propose that we dictate a standard system of "education", which begins at "birth", where we teach children the skills and behavior that are appropriate to their pre-destined class. Finally, we must take special care that we teach the children to be happy where they are, making sure that we don't produce ones with unstable traits, which is so delicately called "ambition" today.

Only then will we reach a social utopia, where not only everyone is happy with their lives, but history is also predictable and controllable due to the inherent traits of the people and their associated behaviors.


Cute. :) (none / 0) (#40)
by tkatchev on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 10:15:51 PM PST
Good job with the literary allusions, BTW. Nice work. :))


--
Peace and much love...




 
What horrid ideas you advocate (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:05:47 AM PST
Please, children are meant to be conceived within the woman's body, and carried to full term within her womb. Stepping beyond that is attempting to play God, and that act of Hubris is surely punishable by Damnation. And tchatez, I don't think mimicing the Immaculate Conception is a cute literary allusion.


A. Rightmann

Good job spelling my name wrong. (none / 0) (#54)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:31:50 AM PST
I agree with you completely. However, you've obviously never read Huxley.


--
Peace and much love...




My apologies (3.00 / 1) (#57)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:42:46 AM PST
t kat chev, I will try to remember that.

Was that allusion to Huxley, the one who advocated mescaline addiction and wrote dystopic bottom-dog novels? He's right up there with Burroughs, Orwell and Kerouac, as far as dangerous writings.


A. Rightmann

I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:56:28 AM PST
I don't think he's dangerous, at least not if you aren't an idiot and you have a solid Christian background. Think of it as satire about what a throughly rational and anti-Christian society would be like. That should scare people into being more tolerant of Christianity.


--
Peace and much love...




Good point (none / 0) (#64)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:08:02 AM PST
One needs only go to anti-God websites like /. and kuro5hin to see what kidn of society they would prefer. I will look into this Huxley.


A. Rightmann

/. is the Devil? (none / 0) (#103)
by Loki on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 06:11:44 AM PST
By /. I assume you mean slashdot.org, and I'm aching to know why you think it's an 'Anti-God' website?


 
You may not be aware... (none / 0) (#65)
by Duke Machesne on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:24:59 AM PST
Jesus Christ was a powerful teacher of the ancient Jewish tradition of using psychedelic mushrooms in the course of personal liberation. Indeed, St. John the Divine recorded the lovely and terrible "dystopic bottom-dog" visions that become available when the doors of perception built into our minds are opened to religious experience using the remarkable chemical keys that God provided.


__________________________________________________
once you've remembered, you'll never forget

Oh yes, one more bottom-dog author (none / 0) (#68)
by Adam Rightmann on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:19:17 AM PST
Phillip K. Dick said what you said better in The Transmigration of Timothy Archer, and if there's a better example of the destruction of the human mind by the use of psychodelic chemicals the Mr. Dick, please show me.


A. Rightmann

 
An INTP's Opinion (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 08:46:01 PM PST
I find it quite difficult to believe that you are an INFP as your comments (degrading someone different from yourself) are quite contrary to the benevolent saints you portray INFPs to be. Did Mother Theresa extol her virtues? No, because what virtue is self-promotion? It seems to me (a removed bystander) that you are rather self-righteous. Why are you trying to remove the splinter in your neighbor's eye whilst you have a plank in your own? (a quote from probably the most famous INFP of all time). This whole hiearchy is anti-social and mean-spirited. I don't understand why someone who professes such selfless and honorable intentions would expend so much energy in degrading the intrinsic worth of others.

And as far as the feasibility of all this, it's a quite silly proposition. Society would slowly stagnate because of an atrophied technological sector. Could you imagine Nikola Tesla (an INTP responsible for modern power plants) relegated to an assembly line? For goodness sakes, there would not have been an assembly line for him to work on because before him there were no requisite power sources! This whole system would crumble without technological advancement, which NTs are indispensable for.

As far as this physical appearance business; that's just silly. Jennifer Anniston and John Travolta have both been typed as INTPs, and are considered quite attractive. Perhaps these physical descriptions stem from your own insecurities about your own appearance (somewhat of an Achilles Heel for INFPs, as they tend to have inferiorty complexes of body image or other nature).

My only point is that each personality has some contribution to make, and we're just limiting society's opportunities (and hence our own), when we deny others to serve their functions with dignity and grace.


Minor Correction (none / 0) (#61)
by Duke Machesne on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:45:54 AM PST
Nikola Tesla was actually an ENTP.


__________________________________________________
once you've remembered, you'll never forget

 
How right you are. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by elenchos on Wed Oct 10th, 2001 at 11:50:24 PM PST
I felt pretty smug about all of this as I read it, because I've called an INFP by this scale for years, IIRC. It all sounded wonderful to me. But then I realized I hadn't taken the test recently. So I did, and was forced to admit the awful truth: I've become an INTP.

I knew it all along, of course, but wanted to pretend otherwise. But now it feels good to quit pretending. And I can report that it's all true: there is nothing more wretched than the degradation of being so in thrall to the little tin god of rationality. To be a slave to the instinct, the innate drive to mechanically act out some kind of inhuman algorithm. I disgust myself.

Remember that I was once in a purer and better state. I know what it is like to stand at the pinnacle of my humanity. And I also know the bitter taste of a fall. The sickening slide into decadent ruin. Now I don't feel things as a man, but simply react to data, as a machine. Why go on like this, anyway? Merely because I'm programmed to. Nothing means anything to we brittle shells that once were human minds.

I almost question the compassion behind allowing such wretches as us to go on at all. You could eradicate us all and we wouldn't even feel it. We would just record the fact of our stepping into oblivion like an insect would. Consciousness is long gone anyway.

Not that it really matters. Everyone dies. Even the exalted superconsciousness of the INFP will die and become nothing. So what does it all amount to then? Nothing. We will each end and be heard no more, no matter how low or high we were in this brief life. Life is a momentary accident, but utter nothingness is the norm of the cosmos. Pure cold dark empty meaningless void. That is what it is all about, and you should realize that right now. Our lives amount to zero in the cosmic scale. Do you know what a speck of dust our whole galaxy is compared to the visible ocean of emptyness strewn with few threads of galaxies punctuating that vast nothing? We are only a tiny fraction of that speck. You are but a bug, a smudge on the surface of the Earth, which is hardly noticable in the solar system as more than a fleck of dust. Think about how little it matters to be the least significant part of an insignificant speck in a meaningless, infintesimile dot. So why bother?

Don't! It isn't worth it. It all amonts to nothing, and don't ever forget that.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
INTJ and proud of it. (none / 0) (#44)
by ausduck on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 02:51:39 AM PST
Dregs of society we may be, but we wouldn't be able to post messages on this site if it weren't for the work of programmers, engineers, etc. Society needs us thinkers much, much more than we need people who make irrational decisions and make deep and meaningful comments on artworks. Ordering the social heirarchy according to the lines that the author has done is to ignore the fact that we are in the Information Age/Technological Revolution/etc.


That is very tunnel visioned of you (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by bc on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:34:48 AM PST
Sure Information Technology and all that is important, but when it comes to what we do with it it isn't the INTPs and INTJs that decide.

Technology is just a tool, a collection of simple and predictable organised matter and the techniques used to get matter into that state. This resevoir of knowledge is important to the human race, certainly, but it all just exists to support the rest of us.

For example, agriculture is much more important than IT, but this doesn't mean we should venerate farmers, important though their work is, I'm sure. We don't get on our knees and worship the Son's of the sod. They are essential, but they aren't cutting edge anymore. Similarly, high technology is attaining a similar status. Progress is guranteed, throw enough INT*'s at the problem, and it will inevitably be solved, just like the farmer spreading seed on fertile ground. A miracle, yes, and to be cherished. Nothing new though. I could watch a seed sprout into a shaft of wheat lots of times, and perhaps I could watch the labour of these techies with a bewildered and thankful fascination, too. Like my old chemistry teacher plugging some Lithium or something in a bowl of water and seeing it fizz around, these people are quite remarkable to watch at work. Technology is like farming, it is important and wondrous but not new. The fascination the common people have is not for scientists and IT technicians, but for poets, artists, musicians and novelists. It seems to me that technology is becoming less and less important, and that the Arts and Entertainment industries are stalking into first place as the most important. We often hear about service based economies, and how manufacturing has given way to service based industries, as manufacturing is simple and understood, easily replicated, and done cheaply in third world countries Though, like agriculture, it is still *important*, it just doesn't need a great number of people or dominate the economy anymore. Manufacturing is going the way of agriculture.

And where Manufacturing goes the service industries like IT and research are following, having already surrendered the crown. Have you ever played civilisation? I did once, they had a thing where you could select what proportion of a city were workers, scientists, entertainers. As society advanced, the importance of the latter would increase. To progress, you'd need the scientists, but once advanced enough it becomes routinised, things like the Scientific method (a routine way of researching, all chance removed) are born, and the entertainers eventually come to the fore. Though this is just a game, I believe that our society is turning a corner just now, and that scientific research can be safely disregarded as in the top tier of professions, for it is simple and predictable. Surely the ethical goal of society is to free everyone from the demands of work? We can move on to a system where the more intangible Artistic types have top rank. Entertainment is the future, I firmly believe that.

What do people want out of life? In my opinion, most seek love, all the shades of love from Romantic to familial to the love of a good friend. The dominance of the *NT*'s in the past has meant that society has neglected love as important, we have seen many 'rational' wars and suchlike thanks to this attitude of praising the impersonal and raising it up. Our modern society is very alienating, too, everyone is forced by the order to become a Pygmalion in their own lifetime, unable to connect with others as they would like to. It is of the utmost importance that we resurrect humane values and allow people to feel for each other without fear, to open themselves up and grasp the nettle of life, of love. Simple tribal societies are among the happiest in the world, and it is time we brought this back by overturning the rampant but inhuman rationalism that stalks us, and forces us to accept fearful compromise.

Good on all the techies for working to create some nice technologies for the rest of us, but still the more feeling, artistic temperaments are the most important, for they define our very humanity. If I had to choose between the invention of the microchip and the sonnets of Shakespeare, I'd choose the latter, for I truly think they have had a far more important and humanising effect on us than any number of transistors.

The INTP/INTJ types depend on the storytellers, the idealists, the philosophers, the artisans, to inspire them. I bet many scientists and technical types were inspired by Science Fiction novels, poetry, and suchlike. And their excesses are curbed by us, too, for example the Nuclear (fucking) bomb was developed by INTPs and INTJs, though it took the sound administration and humanity of NF's and SF's to ensure that it was never used after WWII. And, of course, it would never have been developed in the first place without our outrageous imagination, set into print and sold, inspiring the techies who did the boring but necessary task of making the bomb a reality.

So it always is; we have the ideas and the visions, we dare to dream the impossible, you intj types make it a reality in dank laboratories, and then we thank you and decide what to do with your useful contribution. It is like a pyramid, with the thinkers at the bottom cranking out useful little things to order, and the feelers above instructing and guiding them, inspiring them. I think it is quite wonderful.

When Eve took the apple and ate it on the advice of the serpent, it was like the very first INTP inventing some simple tool, like a bow, or an axe, or fire, even. Her act removed us from a part of ourselves, and the resulting technological deluge that has engulfed us in only 4000 years has damaged us all. It is time to remake everything in a more personal mould, to ensure that technology is the servant of Mankind, not the other way around as many here would have it. This is why the pre-eminence of feelers and particularly INFPs is very important, we are the only ones with the ability to see what must be done, to rekindle the spirit that lies in all out hearts.

Noneheless, on behalf of all feelers everywhere, I thank you for your contribution to our society.


♥, bc.

INTP (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:02:13 AM PST
Next time you feel that your car is broken, ask an artist to fix it. It'll run so much better with all those buttons and bottle caps glued all over it.


 
Feelers vs. Thinkers (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:07:11 AM PST
At least if all of the feelers suddenly disappeared, the thinkers wouldn't starve to death.


Farmers are Feelers (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by bc on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:31:50 AM PST
Most farmers are ISFJs, which is to say Introverted (farmers aren't notably outgoing), Sensing (the love the feel of things on their senses, the Earth, Sun, Rain, Wind...), Feeling (This is where the love comes from), and Judging (this contributes to their stoic air).

Truly, farmers are very poetic and emotional creatures, beneath their rugged exteriors. Unlike iNtuitive feelers, they don't express this in flowery art, but in flowers themseves, the fruits of their labour, the calves and sheep and wheat and corn they lovingly grow.

Farmers are artistic, feeling creators and growers. I don't know what sort of farmer an INTP would make, but I rather suspect they would produce inferior produce, they don't have a feel for the orange carrot, the potato proud and stodgy, but begging to submit, the leek which must be teased into tastiness with a practised, loving hand.

Gardening and farming are closely related, and both are very spiritual, artistic, feeling pursuits.

The only things INTP's and INTJ's have brought to farming is BSE, beef hormone injections, genetic engineering, and all that nonsense. Not a record to be proud of, and sympomatic of what I was talking about in my earlier post.


♥, bc.

You understate the achievements of NT's (none / 0) (#59)
by ausduck on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:38:55 AM PST
bc, it appears as though you have once again misread history. Scientists have brought us the Green Revolution, the use of high-yielding variety seeds, which have increased crop yields in Asia by about 600%, by some estimates.

You say that genetic engineering is "nonsense", but you provide no reasons for why this should be so. Humans have bred dogs so that a single species now can give us a very wide variety of phenotypes. With GM plants, we are merely speeding up that process, and doing so to create crops that are more resistant to wind, rain, bacteria, or whatever affliction happens to be hurting crops.

It was NT's also, who have allowed commercial farming to become so successful that it provides extraordinarily large food surpluses in developed countries. (And, if the feelers of the world are deciding what to do with technology, they ahven't done well with the developing world, where there are large problems of lack of food, despite these food surpluses that exist).


The 'Green Revolution'? (none / 0) (#70)
by bc on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 11:16:55 AM PST
Don't you mean counter-revolution? We were perfectly green, before the NT's mucked it up in the first place! And farmers have done more to increase yields and improve our foodstuffs by having love for their crops, by breeding plants over thousands of years one by one. When you see an ear of corn, you are looking at the judgement of millions of farmers from stone age people on, made reality. It is an awe inspiring thought.

However, I don't deny that NT's have done much for farming technology in the raw sense of statistics and numbers and such (yields, whatever), but can we really say they have improved the lot of the countryside peoples? I don't think so. many countryside ares have been reduced to sterile, homogenous wastes, where machines plow and sow and reap, and the human is taken out of the system, to the detriment of us all.

It is the age old problem of NT's not thinking beyond simple measurable results of their endeavours, to the more difficult issues, such as the effect on society as a whole, and countryside peoples especially.


♥, bc.

 
Scientists ruined food. (none / 0) (#78)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:39:06 PM PST
Try some organically grown food for a change. Notice how it has flavour? Notice how supermarket bought food doesn't? Science at work. Supermarket vegetables and fruit are dusted, sprayed, waxed and irradiated to increase the amount of time they can sit on the supermarket shelf. During this process, flavour is eliminated.

This happens because scientists understand the price of everything, but the value of nothing. To an INTP, food is mere sustenance. It has no value beyond it's ability to provide nutrition. To a more developed human being, good food is the centrepiece of life. Scientific attempts to destroy food will invariably fail. Nobody wants a tomato that is twice as large but tastes like soggy popcorn. Nobody will drnk wine made from grapes that have been genetically engineered; frankengrapes don't age.

Genetic engineering is a most blatant indicator that science is out of control. Scientists have abandoned morals for money, and convinced themselves that the "progress" they are paid to facilitate is the path society is destined to take, completely ignoring the fact that they have chosen to neglect the only important science: pure science.

Don't even get me started on retroviruses.


 
Fascinating... (none / 0) (#71)
by hauntedattics on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 12:08:21 PM PST
Speaking as someone whose father-in-law was a farmer for 40 years, I'll have to share your thoughts of what a farmer's personality is really like with him. With any luck, he'll get a good laugh out of it, if nothing else...




Perhaps the farmers you know are different (none / 0) (#72)
by bc on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 12:14:02 PM PST
I have known several farmers here in Scotland and in Wales, but they were fairly traditional creatures, though a dying breed, Hill farmers and crofters and the like. Many modern farmers, especially in America, tend towards being businessmen because of the distancing effect of modern technology from the land and the pressures of commerce, so I can see your father in law would vary from the farmers I have known.

This is what I meant when I said the works of the INTPs have cruelly affected many aspects of our lifes :(


♥, bc.

 
Your analysis is flawed. (none / 0) (#60)
by ausduck on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:40:06 AM PST
bc, you appear to have to contradictory notions. You say (correctly), that INT*'s are the people who actually make the technology, and that it is the others who then decide what to do with it. However, you say later that you would prefer Shakespeare to transistors. This last statement ignores the fact that you must first have the scientists working to progress our society before we can afford to indulge in such luxuries as entertainment.

I also think that you have misread the history of humanity. On what basis do you lie your claim that NT's have rendered love unimportant in our society? One would have to be completely blind to see that, in fact, there are a large number of people who love their partners and family. If anything, your worry should be the future - the possibility that people in our society would become attached to their computers, with very little social interaction. However, I don't see this as a problem - the non-NT's (who would surely comprise the majority of the population), given any taste of a social life, with its entertainment etc., would move towards there. Even if NT's were to be made the head of society (where we rightfully belong), their lack of interpersonal skills would not be imposed upon the masses.

And I may also point out one example where in fact the lowly thinkers do actually have some impact on where technology goes. Would you not agree that Bill Gates, who had the extraordinary intelligence to write an entire programming language, MS-BASIC, has risen close to the pinnacle of the corporate world, where decisions on where to take the technology are made? I concede that there are exceptions to this model, but the fact that Linus Torvalds is not concerned with what people do with Linux shows that any sweeping generalisations about who works with the products of the NT's are incorrect. I am sure there are other NT's who have majored in economics and are shaping some part of the commercial world today.

Lastly, I would like to point out that, since the end of the Dark Ages, society has moved away from the idea that humans are very important on a universal scale, and we are in fact realising that we are merely the result of billions of years of natural selection, by purely natural forces. The obvious corrolary from this is that the goal of society shouldn't be one in which we don't work (which is completely irrelevant to our existence), but rather one in which we bring ourselves closer to that which we have come from - mere protons, neutrons, electrons and energy. Science (and therefore scientists) should lead us to that noble destination.


I don't think it is (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by bc on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:24:12 AM PST
I would disagree that we need technology to have entertainers. If we look at hunter gatherer tribes today, which exist in an ancient tradition and so are indicative of our origins, we see that they have a lot of free time, and a love of the spiritual and emotional aspects of life. Entertainers are common in such societies.

It was only with the invention of agriculture that everybody descended into work ethic hell. Since that novelty, we have indeed needed extra technology, but everytime a new 'labour saving' technology is invented, NT's pop up with the next bright idea that will enslave everyone, Where 18th century peasants tilled the land, and 19th century proletariat mined coal and worked in factories, we work in call centres.

If we had a more humanistic NF attitude, such inventions would be used for the good of society as a whole, instead of being used to bind us.

Certainly I would take Shakespeare over the invention of transistors! Why, Shakespeare is one of the greatest Artists we have seen, and yet he lived before transistors and such. Has the quality of our artistic output increased since? Possibly in quantity (which is to be greatly encouraged), but not in quality, which is independant of technology.

I don't think Love is unimportant in our society, merely that people are alienated, that they want love desperately and yet cannot find it. Every night, millions of people are clutching pillows in their beds, imagining the warmth of a real human being. Something should be done about such a huge tragedy, but I don't see anyone stepping forward to sort it out, except for a few Idealists who are then scoffed by the hard nosed. That the climate of our society precludes any discussion of such travesties, of the loneliness that wrends a billion human hearts, is damning of the prevalent attitudes in our society, IMHO.

Bill Gates is an INTP, but he doesn't make all the decisions in his company. Microsoft has to be considered as a society unto itself, with many different personality types coming together and cooperating. Certainly, the NTs are making the technology and other types making business decisions and designing software and whatnot, but it is still a cooperative enterprise. Bill Gates is a succesful corporate businessmen though, of course. In many respects I think INTPs can be good at business, but it is best if the cooperate with someone more extroverted (like paul allan or someone?).

Finally, I appreciate that the Copernican principle states that Humans are very unimportant on any cosmic scale, of course this is true. But on a human scale, we are extremely important, and that's all that really matters in the end. And what was that final paragraph all about? Humans are much more than just protons and electrons, there is far far more to life and society and the universe than your reductionist nonsense here! I have to say I don't quite understand what 'noble destination' you have penciled in for us, I just didn't fully understand that last part :\


♥, bc.

 
INTP's Rock (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:00:32 AM PST
Ah, I see the bitterness that flows from having an inferior personality type. If only you were intelligent enough to understand the superiority of INTP's. Sadly, you will be left to a lifetime of emotional mediocrity.

We INTP's run everything, we just haven't bothered to tell you.


 
I don't understand how (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:47:17 AM PST
INFP could be at the top of the heirarchy when they are essentially gayer versions of INTPs who are at the lowest level. We all know that relying on 'emotions' and 'feelings' is a feminine characteristic. Is the author intimating that a woman or an effeminant man would make a good leader? Surely this is a asking for disaster!!


 
Oh the irony (none / 0) (#74)
by sdem on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 05:12:30 PM PST
(NB The author is an INFP himself, and so this article is guaranteed to be unbiased)

There are two possibilities here:

  • You are lying.
  • You scored your test wrong.

    For someone who rates himself as Feeling and Perceiving, you sure are doing quite a lot of promotion of a system that encourages you to objectively rate and judge a person's subjective qualities.


  •  
    Dumbfounded (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:55:31 PM PST
    Honestly, I can't remember the last time I read something as absurd as the originating post. So absurd, I practically thought for sure it was a joke, and was waiting for the punch line and a good laugh. Well, there was indeed a punch line and a laugh: "(NB The author is an INFP himself, and so this article is guaranteed to be unbiased) ". It amazes me how someone can be serious about something so incredibly absurd. You have my pity.


     
    Poor thing... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:59:59 PM PST
    I'd like to assume that this suggested utopia was a satirical attempt to incense the retaliation of the NT masses reading your article. Were I the author, I certainly would have enjoyed reading the severe, yet intelligent, rebuttals such an emotional essay would provoke. And as such, I'll add my two cents.

    Starting with basics... what happened in your childhood? Raised by S's, so you have empathy, maybe even muted respect, with their lot... Not really able to click with any NTs because your emotional instability taxes their comfort zone. No wonder you believe yourself to be the apex of persona. You ostracized yourself a long time ago and have placed a glorified state to what amounts to non-conforming misunderstood loneliness. Wow, that's enough to make me want to put you on a pedestal. And that's really all you want, isn't it? Unconditional positive regard, and using your Feeling tendency to tell yourself it's genuine, I'd imagine. A sad irony is that you will never attain your true goal in this modest proposal of yours. Ruler, huh? You'd be no more capable of attaining this genuine regard were you a drive-thru Wendy's employee.

    Me thinks you've dated an INTJ/P or two and have developed a profound resentment for their confidence, stability and calm demeanor.

    The last INFP I dated had us married in his head after two weeks of dating. When things ended I explained in the best terms I could. It's kind of like two seamstresses. One had a yearning to be a seamstress while the other grew up in a family of seamstresses. Bring the two together and you've got one who has a by-the-book understanding of something and another who has an intrinsic understanding. The later is not going to develop a deep rapport with the former. Your skills are book-taught, and dull for that, I'm afraid. A lost soul purporting utopia consists of surrounding themselves with the comfort of a world of Ss. And far away from the things you can't grasp - like intrinsic Ns and Ts in general. How utterly pathetic.

    The most illogical part of your argument is that dysfunctional families breed perfection. I have yet to meet an INFP who wasn't raised in a terribly dysfunctional home. Whose parents did not understand them and spent a lifetime quashing their dreams and goals. We definitely need a few Dr. Spock books on how to effectively raise our children to be INFPs, particular if our nature is to be supportive and unconditionally loving parents.

    I think at the root you are confusing social actualization with your own need for some soul-searching. Your internal journey has become a warped search for acceptance and love from others. Actualization is developing one's self towards a pursuit of happiness and self-awareness. Neither of which seem to be goals in your social order.

    I sort of see you living an oxymoron. You want someone to love you desperately, and yet you've developed very little in the way of self-understanding (or understanding of others for that matter). Oh sure, you revel in the emotions the arts and entertainment industries stir within you. But art is an external influence like any other, and it has nothing to do with blinders you wear in lieu of working out your own issues. And you will never find a genuine rapport from others (let alone love) until you understand yourself.

    So live your life pining for a delusional utopia instead of finding what you have to make yourself happy. I really don't care... You might say I'm cold that way. Your delusion of grandeur is a pathetic ruse to the poor me victimization I clearly read between the lines.

    Signed,

    An INTX

    I find it doubly funny, that the following is the breakout of instructor personalities at the APT institute, as of the printing of their course schedule for the 2001-02 year. Maybe you should stick to the crystals and Chinese astrology and leave the subjective personality analysis to the NTs and NFs and others who are actually into it for self-awareness.

    ENFPs - 6
    INTJs - 4
    INTPs - 2
    ENTJs - 2
    ENFJs - 1
    ISTJs - 1
    ISFJs - 1
    ESTJs - 1
    INFPs - 1




    No way! (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by bc on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:29:44 AM PST
    Starting with basics... what happened in your childhood? Raised by S's, so you have empathy, maybe even muted respect, with their lot... Not really able to click with any NTs because your emotional instability taxes their comfort zone.

    I wasn't raised by S's, I was raised by TJ's, though, whom i found to be extremely judgemental and demanding, they always had a critical opinion on everything I did. I don't think I have any difficulty getting on with INTP's especially, some of them can be fun, if you know them well.

    You ostracized yourself a long time ago and have placed a glorified state to what amounts to non-conforming misunderstood loneliness.

    How do you work that out? This is what's wrong with INTP's, they way they judge everyone and everything with very little data, and leap to all sorts of silly, unfounded conclusions. I have never ostracised myself, and have never ever placed a glorified state on loneliness! NOBODY who doesn't want to be lonely should be lonely, it is the ultimate curse! That is what my scheme is all about, to make a system where everyone has what they want.

    The most illogical part of your argument is that dysfunctional families breed perfection. I have yet to meet an INFP who wasn't raised in a terribly dysfunctional home. Whose parents did not understand them and spent a lifetime quashing their dreams and goals.

    People who are brought up in perfect families rarely amount to anything. The most interesting, charismatic, imaginative, fascinating people always come from strife and overcome it. You may like the types born to perfect parents behind white picket fences (more like prison fences!), but I would rather take some roue from an unconventional and disastrous background who has seen and done much, and faced disunity.

    I think at the root you are confusing social actualization with your own need for some soul-searching. Your internal journey has become a warped search for acceptance and love from others. Actualization is developing one's self towards a pursuit of happiness and self-awareness. Neither of which seem to be goals in your social order.

    Man is born into the society, not into the world. We depend on others, and one is only definded by others and what they think and how you get on them. Someone who is alone isn't really anything at all. So of course social actualisation is the most important, from society springs forth the self, if your relations with others are good, then your Self can take care of itself :)


    ♥, bc.

    Just the facts, ma'am (4.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:10:16 AM PST
    >I wasn't raised by S's, I was raised by TJ's,
    >though, whom i found to be extremely
    >judgemental and demanding, they always had a
    >critical opinion on everything I did.

    Uh, the correct 2 of 4 main measurements are SJs and NTs - there is no separation of TJs. Chances are your parents were StJs. Check this web site to see if it resonates for you:

    http://look.net/success/SJNF

    >I don't think I have any difficulty getting on
    >with INTP's especially, some of them can
    >be fun, if you know them well.

    There's a world of difference between clicking with someone and "getting on with"... The former is to understand and the latter is to tolerate, IMHO. I think by your berating statements on INTPs below, you certainly don't click with them.


    >How do you work that out? This is what's wrong
    >with INTP's, they way they judge everyone and
    >everything with very little data, and leap to
    >all sorts of silly, unfounded conclusions. I
    >have never ostracised myself, and have never
    >ever placed a glorified state on loneliness!
    >NOBODY who doesn't want to be lonely should be
    >lonely, it is the ultimate curse! That is what
    >my scheme is all about, to make a system where
    >everyone has what they want.

    Basic observation. You placed yourself alone on the top of your totem pole social order lumping others into 2 or more per category. It seems fairly apparent to me, and certainly enough data to draw that conclusion. On a Shakespearean level that's a pretty blatant allusion. And I gather by your emotional response to the word loneliness, that you have personal experience with that "ultimate curse". And by saying your scheme's goal is to conquer loneliness, a scheme which hasn't been achieved yet, I can only conclude you are terribly lonely. Might I suggest running an ad on Yahoo indicating a search for another INFP versus creating a society to support your lack of a mate?


    >People who are brought up in perfect families
    >rarely amount to anything.

    There is no such thing as a perfect family, but you could just as easily say "People who are brought up in dysfunctional families rarely amount to anything" and it would be just as true. You simply choose to champion those who have to crawl out of muck to amount to anything. Rah.

    Unfortunately for your black and white world, there is such a thing as a scale of dysfunction. And having a low level of dysfunction doesn't mean your house comes with a white picket prison. You stereotype (another external vice) too much - no wonder your writing is consistently flawed. And contrary to your assumption, most of my friends are ENFPs, another type associated with high dysfunction family backgrounds.

    >Man is born into the society, not into the
    >world.

    But society is an evolving process, and can therefore be changed by Man. The world moves of it's own accord and it's about the only thing that will, to quote Carlin, shake us off like a bad case of fleas.


    >We depend on others, and one is only definded by
    >others and what they think and how you get on
    >them...from society springs forth the self,

    Your logic says that your worth rests in the thoughts and opinions of others. But how can people form genuine thoughts and opinions ABOUT you if you haven't developed a Self to show them? Oh that's right - in your world, people are TOLD the definition of themselves. There is no personal journey. Your logic is flawed, valuing external influence over the Self. It's commonplace in society, it's a flaw that places the individual in a victim role.


    >if your relations with others are good, then
    >your Self can take care of itself :)

    If people love me, then I'm o.k. Right. If I drink this case of alcohol, I'm more fun to be with. If I let my husband beat me, I'll be loved. External controlling the Internal. Flawed, bud, way flawed.

    But you'll be happy to know I truly do think you are an INFP, I've known enough of them to know that their system of thinking can get hazy when a passionate need to understand something takes center stage.

    INTX


    Still no! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by bc on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:46:23 PM PST
    Check this web site to see if it resonates for you

    I did, and it did! Thank you.

    There's a world of difference between clicking with someone and "getting on with"... The former is to understand and the latter is to tolerate, IMHO. I think by your berating statements on INTPs below, you certainly don't click with them.

    Well i don't know you seem to think everyone should click with everyone else all the time, I don't find INTP's any worse or better than any other type, and I think I have clicked with one or two of them in the past, for sure. On the whole I don't 'click' with people, who can click with everyone that's just absurd! I get on with some and not with others like EVERYBODY ELSE and there's nothing 'lonely' or unusual about that at all!

    And I gather by your emotional response to the word loneliness, that you have personal experience with that "ultimate curse". And by saying your scheme's goal is to conquer loneliness, a scheme which hasn't been achieved yet, I can only conclude you are terribly lonely. Might I suggest running an ad on Yahoo indicating a search for another INFP versus creating a society to support your lack of a mate?

    I have had experience of it before, but not just now by any means. I just don;t think you should taunt others like that, it's a disgrace, yes taunt them with tales of your popularity like some high school jock. I said that loneliness is throughout our society, and I think my scheme would do much to combat it because everybody would have their ideal place, but you want me to be all selfish and only look out for myself when I don't need or want to at this time, I am using my experience of overcoming loneliness to help out others or at least trying to.

    Unfortunately for your black and white world, there is such a thing as a scale of dysfunction. And having a low level of dysfunction doesn't mean your house comes with a white picket prison. You stereotype (another external vice) too much - no wonder your writing is consistently flawed.

    Of course there is a scale of dysfunction, are you denying that some people are more dysfunctional than others? And I bet most low dysfunctional boring people come from low dysfunctional backgrounds, it just makes obvious sense and no amount of silly argument can change it.

    Your logic says that your worth rests in the thoughts and opinions of others. But how can people form genuine thoughts and opinions ABOUT you if you haven't developed a Self to show them? Oh that's right - in your world, people are TOLD the definition of themselves. There is no personal journey. Your logic is flawed, valuing external influence over the Self. It's commonplace in society, it's a flaw that places the individual in a victim role.

    Your worth does rest in the thoughts and opinions of others in some ways, for example there is no point to the title 'PhD' if there isn't anyone around to coo and flutter at it, is there? But there is a point to the work you do for it, even if alone, cos it develops you skills in some field and makes you more complete.

    But in terms od status all that matters is other people, and status is definitely a little part of worth, isn't it? And my point really is that I would kill myself if I had to live in a world without other people, the greatest things are done with other people, we all depend on each other hugely so it is really important what other people think, and what you think of them too!

    If people love me, then I'm o.k. Right. If I drink this case of alcohol, I'm more fun to be with. If I let my husband beat me, I'll be loved. External controlling the Internal. Flawed, bud, way flawed.

    Well it is true, if you drink a case of alchohol most people won't want to be with you, so you argument there is kind of flawed. And if you let your husband beat you, you won't be loved you will just get pain, he is hardly respecting you is he?

    I'm not saying the external should control the internal, just that both are important and that people seem to forget how important other people are, no man is an island but you seem to think we all should be some sort of machine living without the appreciation of others, as though the appreciation of others is sinful when it isn't at all.


    ♥, bc.

    Reply (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:07:42 PM PST
    >...you seem to think everyone should click with everyone else...
    >I don't find INTP's any worse or better than any other type...

    Then you need to clarify for me. I was under the impression your society was based on the very notion that placed in the right groups (ranked from worse to best, I might add) everyone can click with everyone else in their allotted sects. "Getting on" with everyone is what we do know, what's different in your proposal?

    >I just don't think you should taunt others like that

    If I taunted, it was an immature blow-beneath-the-belt reaction to your initially calling me something "at the bottom" - aside from the derogatory remarks within the actual description. My apologies.

    >yes taunt them with tales of your popularity
    >like some high school jock.

    Where did I say I was popular? I'm a hermit by nature. I was a geek in high school... blah blah blah... You're stereotyping again.

    >everybody would have their ideal place, ...
    >and only look out for myself when I don't need

    Hey, you're the one that put yourself at the apex, not me. Alone, even... utterly alone.

    >I am using my experience of overcoming loneliness...
    > to help out others or at least trying to.

    Funny, that didn't come across to me at all. I walked away feeling ostracized, inconsequential and relegated to a dismal existence. I was even informed that I should refrain from contact with the opposite sex. How lonely does it get?

    >I bet most low dysfunctional boring people...
    >it just makes obvious sense and no
    >amount of silly argument can change it.

    I bet your wrong. But apparently the argument is silly in your mind, so we'll skip this one.

    >Your worth does rest in the thoughts and
    >opinions of others in some ways,

    Now wait, in your last email you said, and I quote: ...and one is only definded by others. "Only" and "in some ways" are two very different terms, which are you backing?

    > no point to the title 'PhD' if there isn't anyone
    >around to coo and flutter at it, is there?

    Sure, but the person could still lack character. Character will rear itself over labels any day of the week, and will bite the doc in the end if he or she isn't aware of it (it being the Self).

    >status is definitely a little part of worth, isn't it?

    Yes, but not as to negate self-awareness. Isn't that a "little" part of worth too? Why do you see it as being one or the other? IMHO status is just easier to attain, so are you suggesting we all take the easy road and suffer the consequences later for not knowing ourselves? Using the doctor example, what if patient turnover is high? Or referrals are low? Or your nurses talk about you behind your back? Are you suggesting a doctor unaware of his character can pinpoint how to alter these situations?

    >it is really important what other people think,
    >and what you think of them too!

    You've told me what you think of other people. And quite honestly I'm incredibly disappointed by your conclusions.

    >sort of machine living without the appreciation of
    >others, as though the appreciation of others is sinful

    No. I'm saying that I can't fully and genuinely appreciate someone unless they fully and genuinely appreciate themselves first, which requires self-exploration. And most people don't do it. And it appears that because I do, I'm being considering the bottom-dweller on your utopian ladder. Maybe you're just asking me to superficially appreciate everyone the way my HR director always tells everyone "You're the best". Really, it makes me feel so good about myself for such regard. I don't consider it sinful, it's just fake. Steppford like. Watch the movie Harrison Bergeron (based on a Kurt Vonnegut story). I think you'll enjoy it, or you really won't.

    INTX




    I still disagree :) (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by bc on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:09:55 PM PST
    Then you need to clarify for me. I was under the impression your society was based on the very notion that placed in the right groups (ranked from worse to best, I might add) everyone can click with everyone else in their allotted sects. "Getting on" with everyone is what we do know, what's different in your proposal?

    We don't 'get on' with everyone now, the world is full of loneliness and hatred like you wouldn't believe. I'm saying that if we organise things properly, then the hatred and loneliness can be stopped.

    Now wait, in your last email you said, and I quote: ...and one is only definded by others. "Only" and "in some ways" are two very different terms, which are you backing?

    One is only defeined by others. Whats the point of defining yourself? Surely you just are yourself? What's to define? I don't understand what you mean.

    Yes, but not as to negate self-awareness. Isn't that a "little" part of worth too? Why do you see it as being one or the other? IMHO status is just easier to attain, so are you suggesting we all take the easy road and suffer the consequences later for not knowing ourselves? Using the doctor example, what if patient turnover is high? Or referrals are low? Or your nurses talk about you behind your back? Are you suggesting a doctor unaware of his character can pinpoint how to alter these situations?

    Self-awareness is important, but surely everybody understands themselves implicitly? How can you not understand yourself? You are yourself, everything you are, how can you not know yourself? Surely everybody knows themselves implicitly?

    I think I know myself really pretty well, how could I not know myself? I spend all day in my head, after all. True, there are hidden depths to ever person, but ever person knows what they are because they are you.

    I think my system would allow everyone to get on with each other pretty well, and curb the dangerous excesses of most whilst keeping their good points to benefit all.


    ♥, bc.

    Self (none / 0) (#88)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:19:41 PM PST
    >I'm saying that if we organise things properly,
    >then the hatred and loneliness can be stopped.

    I still say hatred and loneliness are perpetuated by people who lack self-awareness. Remember Groundhog Day with Bill Murray? What a hateful, lonely guy that was. What did it take for him to find love and companionship? Knowing and liking himself.

    >Surely everybody knows themselves implicitly?

    No, they don't... or they wouldn't be reading about themselves in the MBTI... and don't call me Shirley. Here, a suggested source for your own self journey:

    http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP_per.html



     
    Re: Still no! (none / 0) (#109)
    by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 02:00:08 PM PST
    Well i don't know you seem to think everyone should click with everyone else all the time, I don't find INTP's any worse or better than any other type, and I think I have clicked with one or two of them in the past, for sure. On the whole I don't 'click' with people, who can click with everyone that's just absurd! I get on with some and not with others like EVERYBODY ELSE and there's nothing 'lonely' or unusual about that at all!

    I'm not understanding you. You say that you generally do not click with people. But you say that you've clicked wit two or three in the past. If so, then why have you posted inflammatory remarks about INTPs? And if you don't find INTPs any worse than any other type, then explain this: The INTPs are the lowest of the low, and can also be quite dangerous...These types are very autistic in nature, and like most idiot savants they can sometimes show a remarkable facility for impressive but ultimately useless tasks, such as typesetting in TeX or memorising Star Trek dialogue. These types tend to look quite thin and pasty, and take little care over their personal appearance. They often have small, peering eyes and tend to be quite short and ugly. Spots are common. They do not make suitable romantic mates for anyone, and are really best kept away from the opposite sex. What would your INTP friends think of you if they saw what you wrote? There is no way around it. You posted very derogatory and inflammatory remarks about INTPs, and those remarks were devoid of any kind of empathy. My mother is an INFJ. We have an extremely close relationship. My mother has shown me lots of empathy, and I show her lots of true empathy. But your remarks had absolutely no empathy towards us. Only hatred and intolerance. Maybe you need to read Please Understand Me II.


     
    RE: No way (none / 0) (#126)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 23rd, 2002 at 10:20:48 AM PST
    How do you work that out? This is what's wrong with INTP's, they way they judge everyone and everything with very little data, and leap to all sorts of silly, unfounded conclusions. Maybe, but the thing is, contrary to some other types, we tend to be able to change our opinions when we get new data...
    So the conclusions are *never* definite...
    And it is not only that way for everyone, but everything...

    Cheers


     
    Majorly Cynical (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:25:05 AM PST
    Well, I sort of got to suspecting the reason the author wants to surround himself with S's (and have a dislike for N's) is because he is an S himself, not because he was raised by S's. S's tend to be drawn to other S's and N's tend to be drawn to other N's, although for some reason most people who are interested in Myers-Briggs would like to think of themselves as N's no matter who they are drawn to. It's so much more flattering to be known as "ingenious" than "literal" and "unimaginative".

    The truth is, maybe we shouldn't really blame the author of this article too much. There is really something potentially fascistic about Myers-Briggs and other similarly rigid typologies, such as astrology, whether this author writes this article or not. Despite authorities saying "there is no good or bad type" or "there is no good or bad sign", people cannot help preferring some types or signs over others and secretly thinking that some are more superior than others. And I've noticed that INFP (and Pisces) is really felt to be the "best" type. Noticed how people think that INFP's can only be totally "good", and empathetic, kind, selfless, intelligent, talented, always wanting to save the world, and so on... kind of more than human, don't you think?

    As horrible as the thoughts of this author are, at least he's honest about his true opinions. Many people bury these ugly, unsettling feelings under layers and layers of "niceness" and "fairness".


     
    Hahahahahaaa.... (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:53:02 PM PST
    ...this is a good one. I can see you are having a lot of fun. Tell me, just how much do you hate Myers-Briggs? :)



     
    I'm an INTJ. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by jin wicked on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:12:01 PM PST
    I have been for at least three years. Oh well.


    "Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

    ...oh, and I forgot... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jin wicked on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:37:11 PM PST
    Since you put me in the bottom of your social classes, I guess this means our friendship is off. Nice knowing you... I hope you don't feel too bad about it.


    "Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

     
    You? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Genjuro Kibagami on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 10:14:26 PM PST
    Who would have thought you'd be an INTJ considering your recent posts on Kuro5hin..

    Oh, hang on, I remember now.
    ;)


     
    Just Checking (none / 0) (#93)
    by dunne on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 07:01:49 AM PST
    Umm.... this <em>is</em> satirical, right?


    Well (none / 0) (#94)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 07:15:17 AM PST
    Your question is answered in the FAQ under 'Is this site some sort of joke?'

    Hope this helps!


     
    no subject (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:37:57 PM PST
    I hate you.
    Lovingly,
    'Lana, the INTJ.


     
    I knew it! (none / 0) (#101)
    by xingxtians on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:56:33 PM PST
    As an INFP, I always knew I had the best personality to rule the world! I've always been smarter than everyone else, especially that INTP idiot - Albert Einstein! The problem is, I was the only one smart enough to see it. Everyone would just laugh as I said, "Peace", "Love Your Brother", and "Hugs for Everyone" and here I was the smartest one of all!


     
    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 03:03:31 AM PST
    Ok, an anonymous post as I don't *feel* like registering right now...

    This is just too funny. Not really sure what cracks me up more, the original post of some of the replies I've read.

    Any fair person will have to agree with the author on this one and as yet another INFP I state this completelly unbiased.

    If there was no light, would there still be darkness?


     
    So what about me? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 03:19:17 PM PST
    I'm an XNTP. How do I fit in your grand scheme? I WILL RULE YOU ALL! MOUHAHAAHAHA!


     
    Your Ignorance Is a Disgrace To All of Humanity (none / 0) (#105)
    by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 11:15:54 AM PST
    First of all, I am an INTP, or what you consider the lowest of the low. You obviously don't know much about INTPs. I was extremely offended by what you wrote about us. I also have a hard time believing that you are an INFP. Reason being, I know many INFPs and INFJs, and we usually have very good and close friendships. For you to even say what you said about INTPs and INTJs means that you probably have not come across many at all, but this is understandable since each only make up 1% of the population. But let me educate you a little bit. First of all, I will direct you to two good descriptions of INTPs:

    Personality Page Description
    Paul James' Profile

    Here we should have all the INT's - that is to say, the iNtuitive Thinkers, be they judging or perceiving. These types tend to care very little about other human beings, as they value logic and are very cold.

    First of all, I am one of the most caring people you will ever meet. I am an INTP that belongs to a variety of social causes. Many other INTPs and INTJs also belong to social causes. Yes, we value logic. Is something wrong with logic? You tell in detail why you have a hatred of logic.

    They live in thir own mathematical world, removed from all human concerns.

    Oh, I'm sorry for liking math. I apologize for liking Einstein's special theory of relativity. I'm sorry for studying quantim physics! If it wasn't for people like us, we would all still be living in the stone age! Maybe you would want to thank people like us for curing many diseases. Maybe you would like to thank us for laying the groundwork that made possible the overthrow of dictatorship. Well I goess Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Newton, Da Vinci, Einstein, Quantum Hershell (sp?), and Stephen Hawking are the lowest of the low too. Well I freaking apologize for my existing. I'm sorry that us INTPs and INTJs made the vast majority of scientific discoveries. I'm sorry that we created great philosphical works. I'm sorry that that majority of children no longer die before they are 5. Here is a newsflash. The paradigm changes that happened in the 1960s and 1970s were startd by xNTPs and xNTJs several decades before that because of what we discovered in quantum physics and special relativity! It was US that first alerted the world about the dangers of pollution and overpopulation! It was xNTPs and xNTJs that first learned that racism was wrong, because of ther logical experiments! We laid the foundations for most social movements. So yes, we live in our own mathematical world right now. But if it wasn't for this, we would still be living in the medieval period. Because someone challenged the church with new findings in science, there was a Protestant Reformation in the early to mid 1500s. Because of the "Age of Reason", there was an American Revolution. None of this could have never happen without the "mathematical thinking" of people like us! For your information, I'm DAMN glad that I am an INTP. I am damn happy that I have the same temperament as people like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Quantum Herchel, Stephen Hawking, Issac Newton, Gelileo Galilei, Socrates, Arthur C. Clarke, and many more great thinkers in history!

    The INTPs are the lowest of the low, and can also be quite dangerous.

    I challenge you to find an INTP that has EVER done what people like Hitler, Stalin, or Napoleon have ever done. Again, INTPs are usually at the cutting edge of thought in society. From environmentalism, to fighting racism and sexism, to anti-corporatism. In the 1930s, they were at the forefront of the old socialist left. In the 1770s and 1780s, INTPs were DIEHARD revolutionaries. From lots of study (something INTPs are really good at), I found out that INTPs and INFPs are very similar, which is why I have a hard time believing that you are truly an INFP. A piece about their similarity can be found here. INTPs and INFPs are the two most creative personality types. These two are the ones who most like to overthrow an old order. They are both lovers of novelty. The difference is that INTPs search for logical purity while INFPs search for spiritual purity. So yes, INTPs are dangerous. But they are dangerous in the same way that INFPs are. INxPs tend to be lovers of chaos, and are able to swim through chaotic systems. Because of this, INxPs are usually at the cutting edge of thought. INTPs make a very disproportionally large amount of scientific and conceptual breakthroughs, while INFPs make a disproportionally large amount of spiritual paradigm changes.

    They are best left to work on simple tasks that all the other types hate, as they have very high boredom thresholds and can be left to work on boring columns of figures, or program computers, or work on assembly lines, without any real personal problems.

    If you knew anything about INTPs, you would realize that they hate simple tasks. Read the personality descriptions above. INTPs are drawn to complexity. They love complex things. Your ignorance is very amazing, and I am astonished that you would say that INTPs like simple, boring tasks. Programming computers is NOT a simple task. It is extremely complex. Try writing a web browser in C++. You will be writing tens of thousand of lines of cryptic code. Simple? Not by a long shot. Every description of INTPs that I come across say that they hate simple, routine tasks. This is a large problem in marraige. INTPs like complex things. Assembly lines!? NOOO!!! This is WRONG!!! Assembly lines are the epitome of what INTPs despise! They like to be challenged intellectually. Assembly lines do NOT do this! But programming computers do. As for boring, it is a matter of personal taste. Programming computers is fun to me. I like musing over theories of physics. However, I would consider reading and writing poetry to be boring.

    They enjoy being ordered around and told what to do, and as long as their orders don't involve interacting with other people they are very happy.

    No No No!!!!! You are ignorant! INTPs are very independent people. INTPs dislike authority, and are NOT impressed by authority. INTPs are impressed by ideas! In fact, INTPs like interacting with other people just as much as INFPs. Just in case you didn't notice, most INFPs also tend to be loner types.

    These types are very autistic in nature, and like most idiot savants they can sometimes show a remarkable facility for impressive but ultimately useless tasks, such as typesetting in TeX or memorising Star Trek dialogue.

    Read this definition of autistic. By nature, INFPs are either the the most, or second most autistic type. Read the INFP descriptions again! You seem to know nothing about INFPs either!! And guess what!? INFPs are the second most popular "geek" type on the Internet. To me, you seem more like an ESFJ. Maybe you should take more personality tests! And guess what!? INFP are the most resistant to being personality typed. So maybe you should take more tests, because you cannot be an INFP. I've done extensive research on MBTI types, you the traits you are showing just do not add up to INFP. In fact, you seem much more like an Extravert. Not only that, you seem like you could be a borderline Sensing person. Sure, INTPs remember Star Trek dialogue, and typeset in TeX, but remember that TeX was an original. We developed TeX because that was all there was. Now let me talk about impressive tasks. Inventing new technologies is impressive to me. Inventing new ways of thought is certainly impressive to me. Building an operating system is extremely impressive to me, and is something that very few people are able to handle. The daily scientific discoveries are impressive to me. INTPs have done very impressive feats in history, as I have shown above. Think about this: which type is most likely to discover fire? Which type is most likely to invent to wheel? Which type is most likely to come across the theory of relativity? Which type is most like to discover that we are harming the environment? You tell me.

    These types tend to look quite thin and pasty, and take little care over their personal appearance. They often have small, peering eyes and tend to be quite short and ugly. Spots are common. They do not make suitable romantic mates for anyone, and are really best kept away from the opposite sex.

    Now you are showing the full extent of your ignorance. Any person with an IQ of 50 should know that personality type do not match someone's natural physique. If you saw me, you would NOT be able to tell that I am an INTP. And yes, we tend to ignore our personal appearance. But then again, we are busy with advancing the world's knowledge base. We are doing the exceedingly complex tasks that other types are not equipped to do. While people like you are probably partying and getting drunk everyday, and wondering when the next Britney Spears CD is coming out, we are the ones building and designing things like the computer that you are using to write idiotic and inflamatory remarks about is. Have you got nothing better to do than to post judgemental and blatantly wrong remarks about types that you do not even know about? We are the designers of systems. While you are wondering who your next boyfriend will be, we are happily at work advancing the pool of human knowledge. While people like you talk about whether the Back Street Boys or N'Sync is better, we are the ones who are making the important advances against diseases like cancer and AIDS. Your remarks are some of the stupidest I have heard in a long time. You are obviously someone who likes living in ignorance, as you have displayed an extreme amount of that. How about you learn to accept people who are different from you? And how dare you resort to extremely biased arguments to show that INFPs are far superior to any other type? You are showing to be a very narcissistic person. How about you look beyond you self-love and self-indulgence, and look at the world in a more logical way. How about you stop clinging to mental masturbation. And before you write inflammatory posts, how about you try something that you obvious don't do. And that is THINK.


    Hi (none / 0) (#107)
    by bc on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:20:40 PM PST
    I'm sorry, but your post has not changed my mind. It is insulting and outrageous, and riven through with violent urges. I am glad I do not have to meet you, like a typical INTP you would probably try to physically harm me, probably using poison or a similar sneaky method.

    Please, don't attack me and don't hack the adequacy to find out who I am. I know you are very dangerous, being an INTP, and wont to use simple social methods with complicated technology to solve your problems, but please, read my article again and try to escape from your won mind and empathise with another for once, to see what I was really saying. I know that social empathy is difficult for you, but please, please make the attempt and stop being so aggressive and threatening about a post on the internet.


    ♥, bc.

    Re: Hi (none / 0) (#108)
    by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 01:50:46 PM PST
    It is insulting and outrageous...

    How about explaining in detail why my post was outrageous. And also, you failed to answer some questions I posted to you, such as, "What is wrong with logic?"

    I am glad I do not have to meet you, like a typical INTP you would probably try to physically harm me, probably using poison or a similar sneaky method.

    This statement shows your pure ignorance, and this is VERY far from the truth. I have NEVER met an INTP who was violent. INTPs by nature are not violent; only as violent as INFPs. Tell me about 3 INTPs that was prone to violence. I rest my case.

    Please, don't attack me and don't hack the adequacy to find out who I am.

    Again, you are using stereotypes. Hacking computers is against my personal code of morality. You should exactly like a white person who says when he meets a black person, "Please do not kill me." You are reverting to the same mindset that racists use when they stereotype black people.

    I know you are very dangerous, being an INTP, and wont to use simple social methods with complicated technology to solve your problems, but please, read my article again and try to escape from your won mind and empathise with another for once, to see what I was really saying. I know that social empathy is difficult for you, but please, please make the attempt and stop being so aggressive and threatening about a post on the internet.

    INTPs are dangerous, and INFPs aren't? Riddle me this: which type is more likely to destroy the world just to prove a point? INFPs, hands down. Is Osama bin Laden more likely to be an INTP or an INFP? INFP, hands down. There is no logic in the terrorist attacks against the United States. However, someone who is empathetic towards a certain cause can find a reason. And you want me to use empathy to read your post? Let me ask you this: Where was your "empathy" when you wrote your inflammatory remarks about INTPs? Let me refresh your memory: "The INTPs are the lowest of the low, and can also be quite dangerous...These types are very autistic in nature, and like most idiot savants they can sometimes show a remarkable facility for impressive but ultimately useless tasks, such as typesetting in TeX or memorising Star Trek dialogue. These types tend to look quite thin and pasty, and take little care over their personal appearance. They often have small, peering eyes and tend to be quite short and ugly. Spots are common. They do not make suitable romantic mates for anyone, and are really best kept away from the opposite sex." I don't know what you are saying that passes for "empathy", as I see absolutely no empathy in what you wrote about INTPs. In fact, what you wrote was hatred. This is the same type of hatred that the KKK has for black people like me. So why should I be empathetic to you when you have shown absolutely no empathy with me? You are preaching a caste system. You are preaching not empathy, but only hatred and intolerance. Your post hurt me deeply because of this hatred and intolerance. You obviously do not know what empathy is. Empathy means acceptance of those different from you. Empathy means understanding those that are different from you. Until you show both of these, then there is NO empathy in your post. When I replied to your post, I was using emotion and passion, which is something you think that we don't possess.

    I know that social empathy is difficult for you, but please, please make the attempt and stop being so aggressive and threatening about a post on the internet.

    I've read your post with empathy. However, you post contains NO empathy. If you want to know what empathy is, read the speeches of Martin Luther King. Read the speeches of Ghandi. Read the books of Barbara Marx Hubbard. THESE people showed empathy. Your post is much closer to the writings of hatemongerers such as David Duke, the KKK, and even Hitler. Now that I have read your post with empathy, it is your turn. Read my original reply to your post with logic.


    Typical INTP Propaganda (none / 0) (#115)
    by bc on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 06:27:19 PM PST
    you failed to answer some questions I posted to you, such as, "What is wrong with logic?"

    Logic has to be tempered with empathy, it has to be reigned in. For example, stalinism is logical, the capitalist system which enslaves billions in factories, on assembly lines and in call centres is 'logical'. The Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction were 'logical'. And yet you defend logic, when it is merely a tool for a greater social need, and should always be subserviant to the social good. I'm sorry fascist, but your 'empirical rationality' won't fly here.

    This statement shows your pure ignorance, and this is VERY far from the truth. I have NEVER met an INTP who was violent. INTPs by nature are not violent; only as violent as INFPs. Tell me about 3 INTPs that was prone to violence.

    INTP's are passive-aggressive. When I mentioned the poison, and the hacking, I meant that you would probably pretend to be friendly whilst working for a great revenge, and one out of all proportion. Oppenheimer was violent, all the physicists on the Manhattan project were violent, for they invented the weapon f mass murder the world has seen. Who invented concentration camps and Zyclon B? That's right, the 'designers of systems', who probably thought of it as an interesting little theoretical puzzle without at all thinking of the wider consequences.

    INTPs are dangerous, and INFPs aren't? Riddle me this: which type is more likely to destroy the world just to prove a point? INFPs, hands down.

    I have already shown that the INTP's provide the devices by which it is even possible to destroy the world. There is always a risk that some madman will get their hands on these devices, and the terrible state of the world today lies at your door, not mine. BTW, Jesus Christ is considered to have been an INFP, so we can see that INFP's have already saved Mankind, he died for our Sins.

    I don't know what you are saying that passes for "empathy", as I see absolutely no empathy in what you wrote about INTPs. In fact, what you wrote was hatred. This is the same type of hatred that the KKK has for black people like me. So why should I be empathetic to you when you have shown absolutely no empathy with me? You are preaching a caste system.

    There is already a caste system, people are treated as machines, as cogs in the great INTP social machine of International Capitalism. All I want to do is reign in the logic, to put people first before profits. To each according to their needs I say, my words were true and I see no problem with allowing the INTP's to do simple design at the bottom of society, it is far less dangerous and they will be happier there anyway, they don't care for social status because they don't care for society.

    Empathy means acceptance of those different from you. Empathy means understanding those that are different from you. Until you show both of these, then there is NO empathy in your post. When I replied to your post, I was using emotion and passion, which is something you think that we don't possess.

    I do understand them, I understand them only too well. This is why I have proposed these extraordinary measures, for their good and the good of all. I have no wish to do INTP's harm, I just wish to protect them from themselves and shield society from their 'systems'.

    In conclusion, most right thinking people can see that the entire system of exploitative globalisation, environmental damage, social & moral decay and creation of a huge unemployed underclass can be put at the door of the INTP's. At least I don't have genocide and hatred on my conscience, can you say the same?


    ♥, bc.

    Typical anti-INTP propaganda (none / 0) (#116)
    by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 08:49:58 PM PST
    Logic has to be tempered with empathy, it has to be reigned in. For example, stalinism is logical, the capitalist system which enslaves billions in factories, on assembly lines and in call centres is 'logical'. The Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction were 'logical'. And yet you defend logic, when it is merely a tool for a greater social need, and should always be subserviant to the social good. I'm sorry fascist, but your 'empirical rationality' won't fly here.

    Your argument is very one-sided. Yes, Stalinism, the Cold War, and MAD were "logical", but so was the American Revolution. The works of Thomas Paine were rational and logical. You only state what's wrong with rationalism, but you fail to see when it is right. Emotionalism also has short-comings. Emotionalism was largely responsible for the American Civil War. People like John Brown and Thaddeus Stevens were very emotional people. And remember that racism is fueled with emotion. Thousands of lynchings of blacks were caused by emotionally charged whites. World War II was caused by people who had an emotional hatred of Jews. What is my point? Emotionalism is only as good as rationalism. Both can be, and are used for both good and evil. Look at Osama bin Laden. Do you think that his terrorism is caused by logic? No. He has an extreme emotional hatred of the US, which could be tempered with rationalism. For there to be a healthy person, there needs to be a balance. Not only that, but emotionalism and rationalism needs to be given a good and positive direction.

    INTP's are passive-aggressive. When I mentioned the poison, and the hacking, I meant that you would probably pretend to be friendly whilst working for a great revenge, and one out of all proportion. Oppenheimer was violent, all the physicists on the Manhattan project were violent, for they invented the weapon f mass murder the world has seen. Who invented concentration camps and Zyclon B? That's right, the 'designers of systems', who probably thought of it as an interesting little theoretical puzzle without at all thinking of the wider consequences.

    And INFPs are any better? INTPs create the methods of destruction. INFPs create the culture and the values of destruction. Again, cite the examples of the Civil War. Sure, weapons were responsible, but more than anything else, it was the emotional passion for war that made it bad. The same goes for World War II. The Atomic Bomb was dropped pragmatically. Reading the history of the Civil War, what would have happened if the leaders of the nation in the era had the atomic bomb? Surely, they would've incinerated each other. Look at the middle east. Why is there so much hatred between Jews and Muslims? Is it because of logic? Is it because of rationality? NO! They are a bunch of irrational and emotional creatures.

    And let's talk about Stalinism. Stalinism is not NT. It is SJ. NTs by their very nature hate authoritatianism. NTs, especially INTPs, are free-thinking people. So by our very nature, we hate Stalinism. Stalinism is not INTP. It is ESTJ. But that doesn't make ESTJ bad either. INTPs are much more drawn to Thomas Paine-esque rationalism than Stalin-esque rationalism. We tend to value freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and we are by nature VERY independent. The philosophy and ideals of the American revolution are very NT by nature. Again, rationality and emotionalism are just as responsible as each other for destruction. INTPs create the means. INFPs create the value systems necessary for cataclysmic destruction. In fact, I heard an INFP once say this about the recent earthquake in Turkey that killed 40,000 people "God was punishing those in Turkey for practicing Islam, which was blasphemy to Hod." Or one may remember the comments of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after the WTC attacks. They blamed the attacks on seculars, abortionists, feminists, pagans, etc. They might not be INFPs, but they do harbor the Feeling preference. And let's talk about faith healers. For instance, Christian Scientists would rather see children die than get medical help from scientists. So Feelers and Thinkers have an equal stake in world destruction and suffering.

    I have already shown that the INTP's provide the devices by which it is even possible to destroy the world. There is always a risk that some madman will get their hands on these devices, and the terrible state of the world today lies at your door, not mine. BTW, Jesus Christ is considered to have been an INFP, so we can see that INFP's have already saved Mankind, he died for our Sins.


    First of all, I am not a Christian. In fact, I am a secular humanist, which is a philosophy that INTPs tend to be attracted to by our very nature. Was Jesus an INFP, probably so. But does he alone mean that INFPs are good? No. INFPs are as bad as any other type. You talk about how good INFPs are, but they are not the only ones who ever did any good in the world. Above, I exposed that INFPs are also prone to destruction. The same goes for every type. The only thing you can talk about is how evil INTPs are and how good INFPs are. But you do NOT pose a balanced argument. In fact, your argument is amazingly one-sided and biased. INTPs are responsible for a disproportionate amount of scientific discoveries in the world. Galileo helped bring the world out of the Dark Ages. So did Blaise Pascal. NTs were probably responsible for over 85% of scientific advances. So that means that we are responsible for increasing the life expectancy of the average person from less than 30 to 80 in the most advanced nations. During the 1930s and 1940s, NTs were largely responsible for building the new American order. Sure, there were many mistakes (no one's perfect), but without NTs during that time period, Americans would have not corrected the core institutional problems that caused the Great Depression, and we would be living a far poorer life. Look at this website. I personally know the person who made this website, and who wrote the book. He told me that he was an INTP. We are capable of good too. We have written great works by Thomas Paine. Arthur C. Clarke, who is a science-fiction writer who is also a great social and technological visionary (and the person who originally wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey [called The Sentinel] in the 1940s that was directed by Stanley Kubrick) is definitely an xNTP. Buckminster Fuller, who is another great social and scientific visionary who was far ahead of his time, was also an xNTP. Einstein was not only a scientist, but was a great social visionary who was anti-racist. He is clearly an INTP. There are many other such NTs who were great social and scientific revolutionaries. WEB Du Bois was also clearly an NT. He was a great social revolutionary and visionary. Socrates, who was a great social visionary for his time, is widely regarded to have been an INTP.



    There is already a caste system, people are treated as machines, as cogs in the great INTP social machine of International Capitalism. All I want to do is reign in the logic, to put people first before profits. To each according to their needs I say, my words were true and I see no problem with allowing the INTP's to do simple design at the bottom of society, it is far less dangerous and they will be happier there anyway, they don't care for social status because they don't care for society.

    Sure, we are the builders of the system, but who created the values of the system? NFs. Maybe you don't notice this, but psychological types tend to build themselves around the times. There is a very interesting dynamic here. William Strauss and Neil Howe have written a book called Generations. Every 40 years, American society enters a "social moment." Social moments are either Spiritual Awakenings or Secular Crises. Secular Crises radically alter the societal institutions of a society, while Spiritual Awakenings radically alter the culture of a society. Basically, during a Secular Crisis, NTs build a new civic order the fixes the problems of the previous civic order. Then during Awakenings, NF challenge the civic order, exposing its short-comings, and builds a new spiritual agenda for society. Then in the next Secular Crisis, NTs applies this new spiritual agenda to society. Back in the middle 1500s, INFPs were in the midst of a gigantic Spiritual Awakening in which the challenged the moral vacuity of the Catholic Church. NFs built new Protestant Churches and attacked the Papacy. In the Secular Crisis of the 1580s, the NTs designed and implemented the institutions that protected the newly Protestant England from foreign threats. In the 1640s, the NFs were the Awakening era Puritans that summoned the great migration to America. They were also proslavery. In fact, it was the NFs who said that blacks were naturally slaves. The ensuing Secular Crisis happened in the final quarter century of the 1600s. The NTs institutionalized slavery, and built the institutions that kept the colonies from annihilating themselves. The decades of the 1730s and 1740s were the best known decades of the Great Awakening. Again, NFs built a new American culture that separated themselves from Great Britain. In the decades of the 1770s and 1780s, which was a Secular Crisis, NTs declared independence, built the constitution, outlawed slavery in the northern states, and built the many canals. In the next Awakening, which happened in the 1820s and 1830s, a new Awakening burst forth. The main issue was that of slavery. There was a secular crisis in the 1860s, which was the Civil War, but according to the authors, there was no NT generation, and thus, the crisis went haywire. The next Awakening was in the 1890s and 1900s decades. Socialism burst forth onto society at that time. The ensuing secular crisis happened in the 1930s and 1940s decades with the Great Depression and World War II. The socialist ideals of the 1890s were ingrained in the nation. The last Awakening happened in the 1960s and 1970s. The Secular Crisis began with the 911 attacks against the WTC and Pentagon. It will late until the early 2020s. Basically, it goes like this: the INFPs of society had the vision that created the world of the 1950s. The world of the 1950s was built from the ideals of the 1890s Awakening. What happened in the 1890s that caused this? First of all, this Awakening meant a severe resurgence of white supremacy, along with antiracist elements. One can say that INFPs were largely responsible for the large number of emotionally charged lynchings of this time. Not only that, society built a Social Gospel, which was the social ideal that later founded the New Deal in the 1930s. The military-industrial complex has its roots in the fascist movements of the early 1920s, which was founded on an romantic (read: emotional) ideal of the Classical Roman Empire. During the Crisis of the 1930s and 1940s, the socialist and fascist sides both won out. The socialist side built Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Unions. The fascist side built the military-industrial complex. The world of the 2020s will largely depend on which values of the 1960s and 1970s we decide to harbor.

    I do understand them, I understand them only too well. This is why I have proposed these extraordinary measures, for their good and the good of all. I have no wish to do INTP's harm, I just wish to protect them from themselves and shield society from their 'systems'.

    I've answered this above.

    In conclusion, most right thinking people can see that the entire system of exploitative globalisation, environmental damage, social & moral decay and creation of a huge unemployed underclass can be put at the door of the INTP's. At least I don't have genocide and hatred on my conscience, can you say the same?

    Again, this is temporal. In the late 1920s, INFPs were not concerned about the environment, globalism, etc. And again, INTPs built the institutions from the visions of the INFPs at the time. In fact, Robert Frost, who died in 1963, was an INFP who heralded the start of the Augustan Age with the inauguration of JFK. He was a product of the 1890s Awakening. So in his eyes, society was doing extremely well. Compared to his time, the 1960 was a paradise. There was much more economic and social justice for citizens as compared to 1929, which is a time analogous to today. Here's food for thought: Society in the 1950s and 1960s was run largely by a collective NT personality. However, the gap between the rich and the poor was also at the lowest it has ever been. After the Awakening of the 1960s and 1970s, the gap widened, and rose to extremely levels in the 1990s. In fact, the wage gap always rises after an Awakening, and narrows during and after Crisis eras. But INTPs share the blame for creating the institutional order, while INFPs share the blame for creating the values that led to the creation of it. But let's talking about INTPs today. Again, we are at the cutting edge. In fact, most INTPs are anti-corporate by nature. There is a Yahoo club called GreenParty2004. This club is found and run by an INTP. The website TomPaine.Com normally talks about issues and solutions that are written by many people who seem to possess an NT temperament.

    Do I have hatred and genocide on my consciousness? Hell no! Earlier, I wrote a message that seemed angry, but is was because of anger, not hate. INFPs are just as capable of anger as INTPs. I am an INTP, but I am VERY far to the left on political and social issues. So in this case, I am against fighting a full-fledged war on terrorism. However, I am for the execution of Osama bin Laden. The solutions to many of these problems have been stated since the 1970s. The book "The High Frontier" was written by an NT back in 1976. He proposed solutions to problems of energy and environmentalism. I have already written a plan that would get rid of the social evils that you state. The solution to terrorism, the energy crisis, our foreign dependency, corporatism, environmental problems are all deceptively simple. Many of these have been around for a long time, and they were designed by NTs. However, the problem is that society is too complacent to implement these problems. While you worry about the values, we worry about the institutions that implement these values. After all, these ideas are totally useless if there isn't a way to implement them; to apply them to public life. There are several ways to lessen our dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. Right now, my favorite is building solar power satellites in orbit. This would create cheap, renewable, non-environmental impact energy. Not only that, but we can build enough to support a world population of over 30 billion. The problem of resources are just as easy to solve, by using extraterrestrial mineral sources. This would save Earth from environmental problems, and since these resources are much larger than Earth, we can use these to lift the world out of poverty. There is a lot more solutions to our social problems, but I think I've written enough. I have made my point.


     
    my god, the contradictions (none / 0) (#111)
    by em on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 04:12:20 PM PST
    I apologize for liking Einstein's special theory of relativity. I'm sorry for studying quantim physics! If it wasn't for people like us, we would all still be living in the stone age!

    Er, studying special relativity and quantum physics never got anybody out of the stone age.

    Maybe you would like to thank us for laying the groundwork that made possible the overthrow of dictatorship. Well I goess Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Newton, Da Vinci, Einstein, Quantum Hershell (sp?), and Stephen Hawking are the lowest of the low too.

    Please show me the Myers-Briggs test results for Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Newton and Da Vinci, please. Otherwise I have to assume you are bluffing.

    I'm sorry that us INTPs and INTJs made the vast majority of scientific discoveries. I'm sorry that we created great philosphical works.

    Again, I'd ask you to please substantiate your claims.

    It was US that first alerted the world about the dangers of pollution and overpopulation!

    Yes, that was Thomas Malthus. If I recall correctly, it just happens that he believed that a good deal of those things you claim that INTPs solved, like child mortality, he actually thought were divine will, and thus not only natural but *good*. Hell, he called poverty, war and disease "positive checks on population".

    If your argument is that by being and INTP you are virtuous by association, I think it's quite easy to make an argument that, on the contrary, your are guilty by association. Using your own examples.

    So yes, we live in our own mathematical world right now. But if it wasn't for this, we would still be living in the medieval period.

    Your adherence to your psedo-scientific classification of personalities blinds you th the fact that the central concepts behind it, (e.g. "individual", "personality") are socially constructed, and were only given a formulation in the Enlightenment. Given that there were no "individuals" in the medieval ages (in the sense of the term that the Myers-Briggs test presupposes), there weren't any "personality types". So you can't claim any such achievements when your kind didn't even *exist* at the time.

    If you saw me, you would NOT be able to tell that I am an INTP.

    Oh please. The INTPs are easy to identify. They are the ones so autistically immersed in their own personal world, that they trip and fall on undamaged sidewalk surface.

    I could tear this apart even further (there's TONS I haven't touched), but I think I got the message across already.

    BTW, your emotional rant is not characteristic of INTPs.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Oh boy. (none / 0) (#112)
    by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 05:23:02 PM PST
    Er, studying special relativity and quantum physics never got anybody out of the stone age.

    True, because by the time we had these theories, we WERE out of the stone age. But one can make a good argument that Newton and Galileo had a large part in bringing humanity out of the Dark Ages.

    Please show me the Myers-Briggs test results for Plato, Socrates, Galileo, Newton and Da Vinci, please. Otherwise I have to assume you are bluffing.

    Oh come on! Anyone who is capable of logic knows that these types were of the NT temperament. Look at this INTP description, and you should be able to tell that these people were NTs, if not INTPs.

    Again, I'd ask you to please substantiate your claims...Yes, that was Thomas Malthus

    Let's look at the major scientific discoveries. Using your logic, what personality type was Galileo? What type was Newton? These two people were undoubtedly NTs. These are inventors of calssical physics. Who discovered evolution? Darwin? What as he? Definitely an NT. Who discovered Relativity? Einstein, who was definitely an INTP. Who discovered quantum physics? Quantum Hershell, who was also an NT. Who are the originators of space travel? Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Robert Goddard, Herman Oberth, Werner Von Braun? The can only be NTs. I rest my case. A partial list of famous INTPs can be found here. And let me read you a part of the description of INTPs: The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental. They are strongly ingenious, and have unconventional thought patterns which allows them to analyze ideas in new ways. Consequently, a lot of scientific breakthroughs in the world have been made by the INTP. BTW, what is the most logical type for Malthus?

    If your argument is that by being and INTP you are virtuous by association, I think it's quite easy to make an argument that, on the contrary, your are guilty by association. Using your own examples.

    Did I ever say that we were virtuous? No! All I am saying is that we are as important to society, and as needed by society as anyone else! It is bc who said that INTPs were a very horrible type! It is he who is spreading his anti-geek and antirational hatred all over the place.

    Your adherence to your psedo-scientific classification of personalities blinds you th the fact that the central concepts behind it, (e.g. "individual", "personality") are socially constructed, and were only given a formulation in the Enlightenment. Given that there were no "individuals" in the medieval ages (in the sense of the term that the Myers-Briggs test presupposes), there weren't any "personality types". So you can't claim any such achievements when your kind didn't even *exist* at the time.

    Are you certain that there were no "personality types" in the medieval period? According the David Keirsey, NTs were the alchemists and "wizards" of that time. It is only when an NT discovered something (that is, Galileo) did we really push the medieval period behind us.

    Oh please. The INTPs are easy to identify. They are the ones so autistically immersed in their own personal world, that they trip and fall on undamaged sidewalk surface.

    Are you here to discuss, or to flame and insult other people? To me, it seems like you are an antigeek person. Do you have a hatred of INTPs and other NTs like your friend bc? From INTP.ORG, INTPs tend to be rather mistrusting of people and are rather sceptical. However, a lot of their trust is based on what the Ne function tells them about somebody. This can lead to a naivity and sometimes to prejudices based on intuitive perceptions of appearence and style...INTPs dislike making the first move and tend to mirror the emotional content of the other person. A jolly person will quickly bring the INTP out of his shell, as much as that is possible, while a serious person will find a serious INTP looking back at him. In this sense, INTPs preference for intuitive perception (rather than action) with respect to people results in them resembling a chameleon. The INTP can fit into many different modes of behaviour, even contradictory ones, in order to get into the mindset of the other person. The goal is to gain enough intuitive data to analyse and assess the person. In doing this, the INTP remains somewhat reserved, never wholly identifying himself with his surroundings. As chameleons, INTPs are therefore approachable and open, unless the Ne tells the INTP that the other person is a type he doesn't like, in which case the reserved attitude may become too obvious. The chameleon behaviour can be particularly strong when discussing something. The INTP may even argue something that he doesn't really believe himself. Sometimes it is for the intellectual stimulation that comes with the challenge of arguing from a variety of standpoints. Otherwise, it may be to avoid early conflict before the situation has been fully assessed. Chameleons hide their true selves. INTPs do not do this cynically, or indeed all the time, but it is a result of the strong desire to remain detached and observe. So again, I would suggest that you learn about INTPs before you blast them.

    BTW, your emotional rant is not characteristic of INTPs.

    Have you ever actually met an INTP? Let me feed your head with just an ounce of logic: INTPs are as capable of emotion as INFPs are of logic. If you knew anything about MBTIs, then you would know the difference between self-expression and self-control. INTPs are just as emotional as any other type. However, unlike INFPs, who practice self-expression, INTPs practice self-control. INTPs can get emotional. From PersonalityPage.Com: They're very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance...For the INTP, it is extremely important that ideas and facts are expressed correctly and succinctly. They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. From INTP.ORG, Now looking specifically at first the Ti, the principle of detachment even encompasses how an INTP views himself. He may analyse his own thought processes as if his mind and body were separate from his conscious self. In wanting to understand his reactions to things, he may treat himself, even his own thoughts, as subjects for experiment. At the extreme end of the scale, where Ti is very dominant, the ultimate goal of understanding the world with total clarity must be achieved through total detachment from everything. Fortunately, Ti never dominates over the other 3 preferences to such an extent that such an unhealthy state is reached. Where detachment ceases is when someone makes an illogical statement or violates one of the INTPs principles. At such a point, the INTP feels the instant drive to provide for clarity. This is his Mission; to be the provider of clarity, and is often suspicious that he is the only person capable of this task...Finally, the dominant Ti function means that the INTP takes his interests and beliefs very seriously. Honesty and directness when explaining these interests are usually displayed. INTPs detest facades and particulary dislike people who exhibit them. Equally, those kind of people also dislike INTPs and avoid them at all cost, for they know that the INTP will see right through them. The INTP's serious nature also makes them almost immune to mockery and being made fun of, at least when face to face with their mocker. If someone attempts to make a sarcastic, mocking comment about an interest of an INTP, the latter will defend himself with a pure, almost naive seriousness, explaining his position with a severe exactness, wielding his words like swords. This almost always disarms the mocker who does not expect such a penetrating defence. The INTPs defence usually also contains a subtle but biting attack thrown back in the mocker's face, chiefly because the INTP cannot entirely hide the fact that he believes his opponent to be stupid. Such confrontations might develop rapidly into physical ones, a danger that the INTP should be aware of. This ability to wield words with cutting precision is one of the INTP's greatest assests, but equally one of his most deadly traits. He is capable of using words creatively to penetrate deep into the understanding of a subject, but if not checked and wielded carelessly, his words can become highly destructive, especially where the Feeling function is heavily suppressed...Feelings and emotions are regarded with suspicion and perhaps fear by the INTP and he may be keen to avoid considering or showing them. At the same time, he may experience a certain fascination for the emotional world, but he is desperate to de-personalize any thoughts on that area. He is compelled to subject his emotions to continual analysis, the Ti core literally suppressing the Fe shadow, attacking Fe with accusations of irrationality. He resists letting his feelings go, fearing that to do so would be to relinquish control to an unknown force. He believes emotions to be of a lesser substance than logic and his natural goal would be to conquer his emotions with pure rationality...Much of the above demonstrates the immature and underdeveloped approach with which the INTP meets his emotional side. In reality, the extraverted nature of the INTP's feeling judgement means that his emotions, when visible, are pretty direct and easy to assess. Since the INTP normally wishes to hide his emotions; when they do come out, they do so in outbursts with an almost childlike innocence. There is a sense of all-or-nothing and, when visible, there is nothing enigmatic about the feelings of an INTP: indeed, shadow functions always seem pretty raw and basic...When making on the spot decisions while extraverting with another person, the shadow Fe is often temporally exposed on the front line. Its immature nature may then result in an inadequate decision being made. The INTP may regret this later when the Ti core has analysed the events. So look at my post again. My feelings were hurt with his description of INTPs, which was filled with hatred, and it showed.

    You really do not know much about INTPs either. So I suggest that you not judge us. I do not talk about other types at all, and I respect all types? Why can't you all do the same? Why must you resort to flaming personality types that you know nothing about?


    Oh my. (none / 0) (#118)
    by em on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 01:13:15 PM PST
    Anyone who is capable of logic knows that these types were of the NT temperament.

    I am demonstrably "capable of logic" (I've even *taught* logic to undergrad students). Now please show me the *evidence* that these characters are what you claim. (Hint: it doesn't exist.)

    A partial list of famous INTPs can be found here.

    The fact that you produce a list which contains Ayn Rand, Dwight Eisenhower and Margaret Thatcher (not to mention Walt *fucking* Disney) as support only bolsters bc's argument further-- we should certainly keep the NTs as far away from any power as possible.

    Are you certain that there were no "personality types" in the medieval period? According the David Keirsey, NTs were the alchemists and "wizards" of that time.

    Argument from authority, eh?

    Please. It is a well-known fact in the social sciences (outside of psychology, of course, which is the one discipline where foundational issues such as the relation between its object of study and culture are systematically ignored) that the western concept of "individuality" is not only just not "natural" and specifically western, but also historically recent. Your pseudoscientific theory of "personality types" is simply overflowing with unexamined ideological assumptions which didn't hold in the medieval age.

    [delete looong description of how INTPs supposedly are]

    Do you browse pseudoscientific pop psychology sites to find your self identity? Did you one day decide "I am not a manic compulsive, I am an INTP!" and started reading up on idealized descriptions of bogus "personality types" to apply to yourself as scripts to not only govern your interpersonal interactions and give you a sense of self-identity, but also to justify your antisocial aberrations and deny your mental illness?

    You really do not know much about INTPs either. So I suggest that you not judge us.

    "Us"? Again, this silly little imagined community of supposed "INTPs" has damaged your sense of self identity and self worth, and tied it to something as "scientific" as astrology.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    Not Again (none / 0) (#119)
    by madscientist on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 04:32:28 PM PST
    The fact that you produce a list which contains Ayn Rand, Dwight Eisenhower and Margaret Thatcher (not to mention Walt *fucking* Disney) as support only bolsters bc's argument further-- we should certainly keep the NTs as far away from any power as possible.

    Do you think that Thomas Jefferson should be kept from power? How about Einstein? John Adams? James Madison? Abe Lincoln? All of these possessed the rational archetype.

    Do you browse pseudoscientific pop psychology sites to find your self identity? Did you one day decide "I am not a manic compulsive, I am an INTP!" and started reading up on idealized descriptions of bogus "personality types" to apply to yourself as scripts to not only govern your interpersonal interactions and give you a sense of self-identity, but also to justify your antisocial aberrations and deny your mental illness?

    Oh! So now we are resorting to personal attacks? So now, I am mentally ill? May I ask what type YOU are?

    You are such a closed-minded person. Obviously, you fear people who are different from you. Just because someone likes to do physics, we are mentally ill? Just because I like computers, I must be mentally ill? Since you are so much better than me, tell me about your personality, and maybe we can compare, since you think so lowly of people who are geeks.


    Don't evade the question. (none / 0) (#121)
    by em on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 06:57:50 PM PST
    Do you think that Thomas Jefferson should be kept from power? How about Einstein? John Adams? James Madison? Abe Lincoln? All of these possessed the rational archetype.

    Again, I invite you to please present authentic test results from all these persons. A claim that a particular person falls within a particular type can only be meaningfully defended from a well executed test. (Oh, an online test that you pay $15 to take doesn't qualify as well executed, BTW...)

    Again, I await your step-by-step, methodical and thorough explanation of how one can classify historical figures from a time where the cultural concepts the classification itself implicitly invokes were nonexistent, and to top it off, without having the persons alive to administer psychological tests to them. Please accompany with an identification of possible sources of error in the process, and methos for controlling for error.

    Hint: quoting pop psychology entrepeteneurs that make their living out of exploitation by fooling the likes of you doesn't count as valid argument, nor do vague rambling rants about "logic" unaccompanied by derivation of consequences using explicitly stated premises and inference rules.

    Oh, lest I forget, claiming that a historical event wouldn't have happened were it not for people of a certain type is not a valid argument either-- it is a historical counterfactual, and as such is completely unsupportable by empirical methods.

    You are such a closed-minded person. Obviously, you fear people who are different from you. Just because someone likes to do physics, we are mentally ill? Just because I like computers, I must be mentally ill?

    Please point out where in my argument I have in any moment invoked the point of whether you like physics and computers (or any combination therof) or not. All I have invoked is your irrational, emotional, obsessive-compulsive and authoritarian reaction to what you perceive as an attack on the "INTP personality type", based on (a) the number and length of your responses, (b) the kind of "argument" used (appeal to authority in the form of historical figures which you claim form part of a community you imagine built upon "personality type"), and (c) the unfocused and rambling content and tone of the responses. You seem to build your identity, your sense of community and your self-worth around your "personality type". And this can't be healthy.

    BTW for all your identification with the INTP type, as far as one coult tell from examining this thread, my posts accord more with the INTP type than yours. Not that it matters, given that the whole classification is bullshit.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    Just my 2 cents in... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 21st, 2001 at 05:09:34 PM PST
    >>>>BTW, your emotional rant is not characteristic of INTPs.

    It's known that we INTPs are always flexible and open to new ideas... UNTIL an invisible line has been crossed, and our principles violated. Then we become inflexible and F-ish.


     
    Please Understand Me II (none / 0) (#113)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 05:28:15 PM PST
    bc- have you ever read Please Understand Me II by Keirsey? It contains a section devoted to leadership between the types. Out of all the presidents 8 were rationalists: Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, both Adams, Grant, Hoover, and Eisenhower accourding to Keirsey's book. So you would be putting these individuals who so lead the most free country in the world at the bottom rung of society? I'm sorry if you think that Lincoln had no feeling. I'm sorry if you think that Jefferson (an INTP) should be put on the bottom rung of humanity. Personally, I don't see what your problem is with people of more logic oriented types. What's wrong with using brians over feelings every once and a while, esp. for leaders. I wouldn't want a president too feeling oriented in this day in age. I mean, what if the president didn't do anything to retailate against terrorist actions. I'm sure that would work great.


    Agreement (none / 0) (#114)
    by madscientist on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 05:55:13 PM PST
    I agree with everything you said. But let me add another dimension to what you said. It is generallu thought that Feelers are weak and diffident. But there is a flip side to it, since they tend to be passionate, especially NFs. They can also be the most destructive. One can make a good case that Osama bin Laden is an NF. Because their passion is not tempered with logic, they can become passionately hateful people, and prone to destruction. Of course, all types are prone to destruction. But the blame does not rest solely on NT types, as the author seems to say.


     
    INTP - Lowest of the Low (none / 0) (#122)
    by Inden on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 02:09:49 AM PST
    Someone else's definition for you is your choice to accept internally or not. It's a suit of clothes not a destiny.


     
    Cold. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Genjuro Kibagami on Tue Jan 22nd, 2002 at 10:00:44 PM PST
    bi·as (bs)
    n.
    A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.

    A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

    The very definition of bias is something inherently indoctrinated into the feeling fabric of those weak foolish INFPs.

    Your analysis of the suitability of an INFP as a prime choice for a position of supreme power is intriguing, in fact if I wasn't a cold, calloused, vicious INTx, I'd probably say it was amusing.

    Empathy and emotion is a terrible attribute to rule upon to begin with, something with no basis in reality aside from whimsy and weakness. If INFP types ruled the world we would quickly be forced into the bondage of socialism.

    This is of course neglecting the fact that the healthy introverted strain of the emotive type combined with the warped and mutated feeling type cloaks the nature of the individual's feelings from the rest of the population at large, thus even if we did feel it necessary to waste the amount of time required in order to understand the emotional workings of the INFP, it is unlikely that one would succeed at this fruitless endeavour.

    As for the suitability of the INTx type as a ruler, they possess the healthy introversion strain as a prime attribute, and acknowledged in your article was the fact that we care nothing for the fleshling mortals. This puts us in an ideal position to disregard any human refuse that sees fit to insert itself in the way of our entirely logical means and methods, we will do what is necessary when it is necessary to do it without pondering that little sally may get some blood spattered on her frock in the event that things go pear shaped.

    But realistically, society at large could not convince the estimated 1% of the total population that comprises the INTx type to engage in their annoying, illogical governmental systems, typically speaking we would much prefer the dismantling of such a state and deal with our own affairs as our temperament dictates, alone, and with logic and the scientific method as our yardstick.

    I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.




     
    Way Off Base (none / 0) (#127)
    by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jan 25th, 2002 at 08:33:12 AM PST
    I find your conclusions about Meyer-Briggs to be riddled with faulty premises and fallacies. From the link you gave on your web page comes the information (after my signature line) on INTPs, which is *significantly* different than the conclusions you drew.

    I suggest you study: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    I remain helpfully yours, an

    Anonymous INTP

    * * * * * * * * * *

    INTP
    Logical, original, creative thinkers. Can become very excited about theories and ideas. Exceptionally capable and driven to turn theories into clear understandings. Highly value knowledge, competence and logic. Quiet and reserved, hard to get to know well. Individualistic, having no interest in leading or following others.

    The Thinker

    As an INTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

    INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They are the "absent-minded professors", who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions. They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. Their natural drive to turn theories into concrete understanding may turn into a feeling of personal responsibility to solve theoretical problems, and help society move towards a higher understanding.

    INTPs value knowledge above all else. Their minds are constantly working to generate new theories, or to prove or disprove existing theories. They approach problems and theories with enthusiasm and skepticism, ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them. They're usually extremely bright, and able to be objectively critical in their analysis. They love new ideas, and become very excited over abstractions and theories. They love to discuss these concepts with others. They may seem "dreamy" and distant to others, because they spend a lot of time inside their minds musing over theories. They hate to work on routine things - they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others. They are intensely interested in theory, and will put forth tremendous amounts of time and energy into finding a solution to a problem with has piqued their interest.

    INTPs do not like to lead or control people. They're very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance. The INTP is likely to be very shy when it comes to meeting new people. On the other hand, the INTP is very self-confident and gregarious around people they know well, or when discussing theories which they fully understand.

    The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don't understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions. For this reason, INTPs are usually not in-tune with how people are feeling, and are not naturally well-equiped to meet the emotional needs of others.

    The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion, which will interfere with their creative potential. Since their Feeling side is their least developed trait, the INTP may have difficulty giving the warmth and support that is sometimes necessary in intimate relationships. If the INTP doesn't realize the value of attending to other people's feelings, he or she may become overly critical and sarcastic with others. If the INTP is not able to find a place for themself which supports the use of their strongest abilities, they may become generally negative and cynical. If the INTP has not developed their Sensing side sufficiently, they may become unaware of their environment, and exhibit weakness in performing maintenance-type tasks, such as bill-paying and dressing appropriately.

    For the INTP, it is extremely important that ideas and facts are expressed correctly and succinctly. They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others. The INTP may be prone to abandoning a project once they have figured it out, moving on to the next thing. It's important that the INTP place importance on expressing their developed theories in understandable ways. In the end, an amazing discovery means nothing if you are the only person who understands it.

    The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental. They are strongly ingenious, and have unconventional thought patterns which allows them to analyze ideas in new ways. Consequently, a lot of scientific breakthroughs in the world have been made by the INTP.

    The INTP is at his best when he can work on his theories independently. When given an environment which supports his creative genius and possible eccentricity, the INTP can accomplish truly remarkable things. These are the pioneers of new thoughts in our society.


     
    MBTI Type Bias (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 09:58:34 AM PST
    A bias towards or against any of the MBTI types is a sign of immaturity. MBTI should be used to understand people, not to "rate" them. A mature person of any time should be able to get along with, appreciate, and enjoy any other type.

    Regarding the original post, there were so many inaccuracies I wasn't sure if the post was tongue in cheek or what. For example, INTPs are not structured and organized, they are just the opposite. And they do get bored easily, so you DON'T have them do the grunt work. They are better at analyzing systems. It is the ISTJ who is best suited to adding up long collumns of numbers.

    And, of course, the NTs don't hate people, nor do the STs. They just value objectivity and honesty and assume everyone else does so too. Rather than lie and say your hair looks nice, they might feel you'd rather hear the truth, because THEY would rather hear the truth. The most hurtful, spiteful people are actually F types with a grudge, because they take supposed slights so personally. Hitler was an F type.

    ENTPs aren't overly controlling - that's the ENTJ (who MUST be boss). That's also the ESTJ and ESFJ. ENTPs are more like ENFPs - they are idea people -- catalysts -- who see possibilities and try to explain their vision with enthusiasm. They don't particularely want to be boss, but don't hesitate to delegate when in need.

    Anyway, the original poster obviously knows almost nothing about MBTI.


     
    We solve Problems others give us (none / 0) (#130)
    by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 02:09:56 AM PST
    Though we do our own experimenting as well.

    Forcefully segregating INTPs is equivalent to forcing women to wear burkahs. (note, many INTPs choose self-segregation, as many women choose concealing clothes. The evil is not in the decision, it's in the self-determination of the decision.)

    Many of the supposedly horrible things INTPs have done have been as a result some other type has asked us to do. Often, we do not complete said thing, it is up to another type to take what we have made and alter it destructively. To punish INTPs for the evil of others is fundamentally flawed.


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.