Re: INTPs: how they think
i'm an INTJ, and i'm not sure quite how to answer it. first off, i have some doubts that all INTP's are spatially aware, since it's how you use your brain and not a personality.
i'm spatial aware, absoulute control? not sure. i can imagine something so detailed that i can physcially touch it in my mind. i can play with it, break it, smell it, taste it (kind of), listen to it. i can take it apart and improve on the design in my head, without prototypes. sort of a sub-prototype. once i figure out what it should look like, i can then break it down, and figure out how to make it with what i have. i then imagine myself making it, work out the bugs then make it.
sometimes the images can be so detailed, that i do actually look for it in the real world. it can be dangerous as my current views will change to interactive fantasy. while driving this can be a real thrill, which is why i use music to distract my attention back to reality.
i can develop emotions over a person that i totally made up. have an entire life together, adventures and so forth. however the universe that's created HAS to make sense. as long as the physics are explained, then it's ok to create. however i don't like making fake people that often. i tend to be loyal to one person. so when i make a fake person to escape reality, i'm not looking out for a real person, but a fake one. or i'm applying what i want in a girl, to the real person, comparing her to the fake one.... however the "dreams" keep me sane and relaxed.
you need to be able to use both sides of your brain at the same time (alpha-theta waves), to be able to do this. to be able to generate a dream, make sense of it, modify it, and re-create it. so your struggles may simply be that, it's how you use the brain itself. girls supposedly have better access to the two halves. so in their case they could probably do it pretty well (being and NT on top of that).
as far as the rest of the thinking, i don't know. from my research, i think P=more playful. and J=more serious. we do care about the future, i can foresee many outcomes, both good and bad. plan for the worst, hope for the best. many don't do this, and are almost always caught off gaurd in a storm. where i have my glowsticks, LED flashlights, and wind up radio at the ready.
Re: INTPs: how they think
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_INTJ
i'm an INTJ, and i'm not sure quite how to answer it. first off, i have some doubts that all INTP's are spatially aware, since it's how you use your brain and not a personality.
I don't think this is the case. Jung defined intuition as the ability to examine possibilities. It seems unlikely that a person can experience non-real scenarios, and therefore appraise possible event processes with any degree of success, without decent spatial awareness.
The brain is the source of personality. It seems to me causally incoherent to presume that "how you use your brain" is apart from personality. (at least in regards to the higher functions, which intuition and mind certainly are)
Quote:
i'm spatial aware, absoulute control? not sure. i can imagine something so detailed that i can physcially touch it in my mind. i can play with it, break it, smell it, taste it (kind of), listen to it. i can take it apart and improve on the design in my head, without prototypes. sort of a sub-prototype. once i figure out what it should look like, i can then break it down, and figure out how to make it with what i have. i then imagine myself making it, work out the bugs then make it.
Right. But I can do that too, or else I wouldn't be able to imagine the event pathways with which I reconcile fantasy storylines with reality. I also do that a lot in programming. It's a slow process, though, usually hinging upon random insight into the problems I'm trying to solves. I can only follow these pathways so far, though; then my perspective begins to "cloud", and things get more difficult to perceive. I reckon this difficulty as an exhaustion of perceptive energy.
Quote:
sometimes the images can be so detailed, that i do actually look for it in the real world. it can be dangerous as my current views will change to interactive fantasy. while driving this can be a real thrill, which is why i use music to distract my attention back to reality.
Why not accept that reality is so fragile?
Quote:
i can develop emotions over a person that i totally made up. have an entire life together, adventures and so forth. however the universe that's created HAS to make sense. as long as the physics are explained, then it's ok to create. however i don't like making fake people that often. i tend to be loyal to one person. so when i make a fake person to escape reality, i'm not looking out for a real person, but a fake one. or i'm applying what i want in a girl, to the real person, comparing her to the fake one.... however the "dreams" keep me sane and relaxed.
I've done this. I fantasize talking with people all the time. In fact, although I am often alone, I rarely feel alone because my appraisal of their character is so acute that I can converse with their mental image as well as, if not better than, with the real person.
I admit to doing that a lot in regards to this community's characters lately.
(and I use the term "character in this sense to refer to a specific pattern of personality traits that a person feels comfortable with sharing in a community environment)
Quote:
you need to be able to use both sides of your brain at the same time (alpha-theta waves), to be able to do this. to be able to generate a dream, make sense of it, modify it, and re-create it. so your struggles may simply be that, it's how you use the brain itself. girls supposedly have better access to the two halves. so in their case they could probably do it pretty well (being and NT on top of that).
alpha-theta waves... these must be the work of neurotransmitters....
I question that girls have "better access". It seems to me likely that the researchers who are conducting these studies are being mislead by differences in personality type. There is a conflicting viewpoint to that theory in existence, and if personality type was indexed in the appraisal of the research sampling, then that conflicting viewpoint likely would not exist. The sampling data is not overwhelming, usually only representing a modest supermajority, when it should be 100%.
Quote:
as far as the rest of the thinking, i don't know. from my research, i think P=more playful. and J=more serious. we do care about the future, i can foresee many outcomes, both good and bad. plan for the worst, hope for the best. many don't do this, and are almost always caught off gaurd in a storm. where i have my glowsticks, LED flashlights, and wind up radio at the ready.
Those who are caught "off guard": non-intuitives. It seems to me that one must trade spatial awareness for physical awareness, because both traits compete over the senses, especially the visual cortex. The duality between spatial awareness and intuition, therefore, seems self-evident.
I've not yet heard the INTPs (mbti, socionics, they're all the same; the difference is a misinterpretation) views. Cone, will you provide us with some insight into your thinking processes?
Re: INTPs: how they think
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_INTJ
i'm an INTJ, and i'm not sure quite how to answer it. first off, i have some doubts that all INTP's are spatially aware, since it's how you use your brain and not a personality.
I don't think this is the case. Jung defined intuition as the ability to examine possibilities. It seems unlikely that a person can experience non-real scenarios, and therefore appraise possible event processes with any degree of success, without decent spatial awareness.
The brain is the source of personality. It seems to me causally incoherent to presume that "how you use your brain" is apart from personality. (at least in regards to the higher functions, which intuition and mind certainly are)
i don't trust just one persons observations. jung pointed things out, but his word isn't law. since intuition people are in a small number, there is no way he could have gotten an accurate account on each one.
intuition is a bunch of things. from understanding how a person works, to understanding how to put something together without instructions. to understanding how the universe works, future, etc.
without the brain there wouldn't be anything. the personality is merely a program, and how it accesses the brain. it's sort of like saying a computer program , like the OS, is the personality of the computer. change the software, the computer remains the same, but it's used in a different way.
Quote:
Quote:
i'm spatial aware, absoulute control? not sure. i can imagine something so detailed that i can physcially touch it in my mind. i can play with it, break it, smell it, taste it (kind of), listen to it. i can take it apart and improve on the design in my head, without prototypes. sort of a sub-prototype. once i figure out what it should look like, i can then break it down, and figure out how to make it with what i have. i then imagine myself making it, work out the bugs then make it.
Right. But I can do that too, or else I wouldn't be able to imagine the event pathways with which I reconcile fantasy storylines with reality. I also do that a lot in programming. It's a slow process, though, usually hinging upon random insight into the problems I'm trying to solves. I can only follow these pathways so far, though; then my perspective begins to "cloud", and things get more difficult to perceive. I reckon this difficulty as an exhaustion of perceptive energy.
i think it all depends on how you think. since i already see and think in clear pictures - the one's in my head are no different then those in reality. if the idea isn't totally sound, i'll see it in a cloud. otherwise, once i see it fully, i can play with it.
Quote:
Quote:
sometimes the images can be so detailed, that i do actually look for it in the real world. it can be dangerous as my current views will change to interactive fantasy. while driving this can be a real thrill, which is why i use music to distract my attention back to reality.
Why not accept that reality is so fragile?
reality is pretty fragile. however there is a mechanism in your mind that let's you know what world your in. sort of like when you have a dream, you usually don't feel like your totally there. reality is different than imagination. however if you let yourself be abosorbed by it, then you can slip into insanity.
Quote:
Quote:
you need to be able to use both sides of your brain at the same time (alpha-theta waves), to be able to do this. to be able to generate a dream, make sense of it, modify it, and re-create it. so your struggles may simply be that, it's how you use the brain itself. girls supposedly have better access to the two halves. so in their case they could probably do it pretty well (being and NT on top of that).
alpha-theta waves... these must be the work of neurotransmitters....
I question that girls have "better access". It seems to me likely that the researchers who are conducting these studies are being mislead by differences in personality type. There is a conflicting viewpoint to that theory in existence, and if personality type was indexed in the appraisal of the research sampling, then that conflicting viewpoint likely would not exist. The sampling data is not overwhelming, usually only representing a modest supermajority, when it should be 100%.
Quote:
i think the brainwaves, could be closer to the math that's in your head. or a power level. i think that the occurance of these waves could release other things like endorphines, i know i'm pretty mellow when i'm in the zone.
there's a section in the brain, the name of which totally escapes me, that has more receptors. supposedly for a female they have this better tuned. so they can access the sides easier. however i don't totally believe in a male or female brain. but since i'm not a doctor, i don't have access to experiment...
Quote:
as far as the rest of the thinking, i don't know. from my research, i think P=more playful. and J=more serious. we do care about the future, i can foresee many outcomes, both good and bad. plan for the worst, hope for the best. many don't do this, and are almost always caught off gaurd in a storm. where i have my glowsticks, LED flashlights, and wind up radio at the ready.
Those who are caught "off guard": non-intuitives. It seems to me that one must trade spatial awareness for physical awareness, because both traits compete over the senses, especially the visual cortex. The duality between spatial awareness and intuition, therefore, seems self-evident.
I've not yet heard the INTPs (mbti, socionics, they're all the same; the difference is a misinterpretation) views. Cone, will you provide us with some insight into your thinking processes?
maybe someone can setup a list of definitions for everyone to go on. as to what the meaning of intuition, spatial, etc is. so we are all on the same level. just like when i asked about thinking modes, thinking in pictures - everyone had their own definition. we could be going in circles.