Which type would you suspect him to be?
Kurt Gödel
Which type would you suspect him to be?
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Definitely INTP. Definitely.
It used to be "everybody's ENTp". Now it's "everybody's INTp."
CuriousSoul typed him as INTj about a year ago.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Re: Kurt Gödel?
Possibly the most OBVIOUS INTj thru all of history. Archtypical INTj.Originally Posted by MysticSonic
Greetings, Ragnar
No way, he wasn't one of us!
I've never yet heard of an INTJ who starved himself! Doesn't that go contrary to our "hidden agenda?"
I'm sure he was an INTP. An "ultimate" INTP who had a talent for completely losing himself in abstraction, but an INTP nontheless.
...It's remotely possible that he was an xxxP (incarnate perception), but I can't vouch for it because I haven't had enough sampling for my test. He wasn't the kind of guy who liked to be around other people though, so he doesn't seem that narcissistic. I still think he was an INTP.
INTJs don't have that kind of patience for math.
Yeah, what good does your Ti do you.INTJs don't have that kind of patience for math.Numbers are realted to the Te function, IMO.
I'm sure our resident INTjs would just love to disagree with you on that proposition.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Really? It seems like Ti types get almost disoriented trying to balance too many numbers. discojoe said it, McNew said, and remember that even Jung had trouble with math? Now tcaudilllg is saying that LIIs don't have patience for math.
EDIT: I forgot about theodosis. I wonder what he'd have to say about this...
Well, I remember Pedro and Mystic saying they play around with numbers alot.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
I'm not looking this guy up. who is he and what did he do?
Me neither. I demand you satisfy my intellectual lazyness
By the early 1900s stodgy Judging (in the MBTI sense) mathematicians had gotten somewhat tired of all the open ended creative antics of their P (ditto sense) collegues, and went on their usual hunt for "Closure". Or, true to the spirit of high level math, at least a proof that Closure could be attained in PRINCIPLE.
Godel showed that perfect closure was nowhere to find, except in severely limited pockets of the mathematicians universe. To the great sorrow of many people, including I guess the famous David Hilbert.
Both Hilbert and the Russel&Whitehead duo were at the time seeking this dream of frigid order in the conceptual universe.
A deep explanation of all this involves a scary subfield of math known as formal logic, about which I'm basically blank. A google or altavista search on "David Hilbert", "Kurt Godel", "Principia Mathematica", etc. will enlighten.
Greetings, ragnar
INTJs don't have that kind of patience for math.Perhaps a number of INTjs have difficulty with mathematics, but I think there should be a line drawn to where we stop attempting to link everything to type or functions. I do not really think that the INTjs who have a problem with math has to do with them being an INTj. It is more likely that they simply do not like it, thus not really giving it trying at it. BUT, I currently have an INTj calculus teacher, who also teaches algebra. I personally always loved counting things, and I have no problem multiplying large number in my head or the such.Really? It seems like Ti types get almost disoriented trying to balance too many numbers. discojoe said it, McNew said, and remember that even Jung had trouble with math? Now tcaudilllg is saying that LIIs don't have patience for math.
On math and INTJs:
When we talk about math (algebra especially), we talk about symbols. A mathematical equation describes how quantities interact with each other. Quantities, not "things".
INTJs live in the world of "things": things imagined, things real and imaginable. We always have definite labels for our things. Even when we describe "ducks" we have in our heads the image of a duck we have seen, recalled from memory, front and center. (if only for a fraction of a second) INTJs cannot accept the concept of something existing without some concept of definite form connotated to it. It's absurd. Likewise, we have a less than enjoyable precept of the idea of blindly working with numbers to the end of working with numbers in themselves. ("blindly" as we as INTJs see it, of course) There MUST be a point.
So can I believe an INTJ teaching calculus? Yes, I can. I can even believe them teaching algebra. But there is a difference in educating people for a particular end, and geniuinely believing that that entire world must be "proved". To the INTJ, truth is self-evident.
Those who use math not at as a means to an end, but for the purpose of being certain in itself, are not INTJs.
"Those who use math not at as a means to an end, but for the purpose of being certain in itself, are not INTJs."
I'm going to have to say that's complete bull; I think it's the other way around.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
... right, I thought that WAS what Ti was?
Alright then, for the sake of argument, under what pretexts would an INTJ enjoy solving math problems?
I enjoy solving math problems when it helps me understand things such as physics more, although I don't enjoy solving math problems for their own sake.
As for your question, I'd have to guess it's when the INTj is exceptionally intelligent and has derived some sort of societal benefit from exhibiting said intelligence.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
I think alot of this is really open to speculation. Now I'm really good at problem solving but in school I never paid attention in class(if i even bothered showing up). Teachers reduced it to formal shortcuts and techniques which made the subject easier to get throught and pass and therefore sacrificed the subjects worth as a science. Its about getting the students through, not teaching them.
Now that I think back the most informative education I had about numbers involved the little cubic "units" that came in different blocks. Remember those? most algebra teachers at the highschool level don't think in "units" they just do the problems blindly, their problem solving skills are for the most part unconscious.
you ask someone to draw what a "cubed" or even "squared" number actually looks like- how the process is carried out, step by step, few people could do it. my guess is under 10% of the population can actually do that even though its easy to do. It's a testament to how powerful the unconscious really is.
It's quite simple- math is made boring, just like socionics can also be made boring. things lose their meaning once they become standardized. When i think in "cubes" i find math more interesting because it has a tangible essence- it is actually building something. I used to never know what the hell they were talking about when they said that this is squared and that is cubed. they never gave you time to think about it, you just had to do it and NEVER ask questions. you ask questions you'll probably stump the teacher or you will fall behind.
But as for the whole j/p thing with math- i don't know if you can really pin certainty in terms of numbers on to a specific type. I assume that j types are better at following an organized sequence of rules, but they can't give you an explanation as to what the hell what they are actually doing/can do like a perceiver does(typically from my observations so take it lightly). there is an interdependency. also our minds aren't made of a string of functions, that's just how its represented, so the variation is probably big among individuals in how they solve and explain problems.
I haveand i like resolving math problems for their own sake. I like math more than physics because it has to do with logically applying a set of absolutes more than measuring and learning facts. Resolving math problems is soothing. I'm actually going to study math in university as soon as i finish the prerequisite classes. I agree though that applying math to everything is prettty cool too.
...
I've never yet heard of an INTJ who starved himself! Doesn't that go contrary to our "hidden agenda?"
...
Socionics INTj and MBTI INTJ are not the same. I assume you mean INTj, ie TiNe in the functional Socionics notation.
The hidden agenda can manifest itself in odd ways. This starvation thing was a result of Godel's health obsession - the INTj "hidden agenda" - combined with a personality disorder. (Wikipedia says he developed paranoid schizofrenia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Godel ).
Trying to use the hidden agenda in typing is often misleading, though. By it's very nature it's kind of "hidden". Pathologies often bring it out, often in a slightly disguised form, like here.
Greetings, ragnar
It's not about "solving math problems" really. More about discovery and exploration. In the REAL universe - the Platonic one. Of which our world is some kind of shadow.
Godel was a scientist who made revolutionary discoveries, not some kind of a drudge math cleric.
It's about understanding not only the universe, but all possible universes. No motivation (societal or otherwise) is called for.
The desire to comprehend and grasp this strange place called reality is what drives science and scientists. Including Socionics researchers too, I hope :-) .
Greetings, ragnar
If an INTJ is playing around with math problems on a regular basis then he is sacrificing his will to embrace new ideas, and to follow them in how they relate to his other ideas in search of a more detailed "big picture". Secondly, the ESFP shadow of the INTJ is the meticulous detail-maven.
The idea that Kurt Godel was an INTJ is absurd. Simply absurd. I've studied the man well beyond Wikipedia. An INTP, yes. An INTJ, NO.
Note: INTJs don't become schizoid. EVER, unless they have an accident, and it is very, very rare that an INTJ lets their guard down enough to go into a situation dangerous enough to injure their brain. And even if they do, they keep a very, very close eye on the unconscious throughout the entire ordeal (and that's what it is) and when they get out of it the people who had gotten them into the mess had better brace themselves for a whithering verbal assault, at least. We take the emergence of forces that end up nearly costing us dearly very seriously, and this is when we are at our most ruthless. "You dare to presume to threaten me?! Die...."
An INTJ wouldn't let themselves get paranoid. They'd have gone to any necessary depths to so shock the world into thinking they were untouchable long before hand. (in the mind of the INTJ at least, and that's all that matters)
Socionics and MBTI ARE THE SAME. The suggestion that they aren't is a misinterpretation of the meaning of Ti. Ti acts as a filter overtop of Te. Thoughts in the INTJ's mind emphasize the importance of the subject over the object, for the purpose of preserving the INTJ's pursuit of the aims assembled by extroverted intuition: continuous pursuit over what "should" be over what is, where "should" refers to the values of the INTJ wrapped in a logical coating of "moral principles". As INTJs mature, the moral principle set is extended to include those thought patterns that implicitly promote the physical health of the community and, by extension, of the INTJ. INTJ maturation is advanced through the conscious exhaultation of Te alongside Ti.
Any system that attempts to describe the INTJ otherwise is simply flawed.
I enjoy solving math problems when it helps me understand things such as physics more, although I don't enjoy solving math problems for their own sake.
As for your question, I'd have to guess it's when the INTj is exceptionally intelligent and has derived some sort of societal benefit from exhibiting said intelligence.When we talk about math (algebra especially), we talk about symbols. A mathematical equation describes how quantities interact with each other. Quantities, not "things".
INTJs live in the world of "things": things imagined, things real and imaginable. We always have definite labels for our things. Even when we describe "ducks" we have in our heads the image of a duck we have seen, recalled from memory, front and center. (if only for a fraction of a second) INTJs cannot accept the concept of something existing without some concept of definite form connotated to it. It's absurd. Likewise, we have a less than enjoyable precept of the idea of blindly working with numbers to the end of working with numbers in themselves. ("blindly" as we as INTJs see it, of course) There MUST be a point.
So can I believe an INTJ teaching calculus? Yes, I can. I can even believe them teaching algebra. But there is a difference in educating people for a particular end, and geniuinely believing that that entire world must be "proved". To the INTJ, truth is self-evident.
Those who use math not at as a means to an end, but for the purpose of being certain in itself, are not INTJs.I enjoy solving math problems when it helps me understand things such as physics more, although I don't enjoy solving math problems for their own sake.
As for your question, I'd have to guess it's when the INTj is exceptionally intelligent and has derived some sort of societal benefit from exhibiting said intelligence.I do enjoy solving mathematical problems for their own sake... I only like doing this for its sake in PHYSICS, which helps me to gain a more fundamental understanding of the universe. I make the equations real in my head... not how most people think of them but in a metaphysical way that is real to me. To gain a complete understanding of this universe down to its fundamentals one must use Mathematics.If an INTJ is playing around with math problems on a regular basis then he is sacrificing his will to embrace new ideas, and to follow them in how they relate to his other ideas in search of a more detailed "big picture". Secondly, the ESFP shadow of the INTJ is the meticulous detail-maven.
The idea that Kurt Godel was an INTJ is absurd. Simply absurd. I've
Let’s say I wanted to attempt to prove the existence of God then I would use predicate calculus to derive the equations. T3 is defined as (p^~p)^(p<=>~p)^(~p<=>p) or p=>-p=>p=>, which leads to a contradiction. And T4 being (p)^(p=>-p=-(p=>-p)=>-(p=>-p=-(p=>-p))=>...), which continuously and holistically contradicts its own predicates. No one will end up with the predicates for this due to it is impossible to define what God is, we can merely define the qualities of God. And to think about it, what I just said is similar to saying: "1+1=2 because of T, where T states that 1+1=2" ... petito principii ... but anyway, I guess the job of the philosopher or the rationalist is not to accept something as it already is, but rather come up with an explanation for everything that does not need an explanation. That's the longanimity of rationalism. Or shall I say, irony of longanimity?To the INTJ, truth is self-evident.
It could also mean that maybe I am not an INTj and that I might be an INTp (but that's for another time)....
*Reposting under my own username....*
implied, that was a very informative article, especially in regards to Godel's peceptions of time. I have the opposite view: that rather than relativity acting as a proof that time does not exist, it instead is absolute evidence that it does.
Of course, there are so many different interpretations... and of course without a definite context under which to interpret the world, the INTJ is at a total loss. We are especially prone to floundering in these forum envioronments, where context tends to evaporate away in the myriad observations and reobservations of readers....
This idea seem like one only an INTP could love, but I would like to learn more about how they perceive it. What is time to the INTP? To any perceiver?
I think the idea of what time is, and how people perceive it, gets to the heart of the issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote