Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In theory, it is possible that 3 intps, equally strong in their cognitive functions would all be the same right?

Or, are the subtle differences we embody (upbringing, physical appearance, culture ect.) enough to generate different responses to the same questions..? I dont see how that would matter.. This then subjects us to the same generic value (at least I) that we give to society...


Just a thought I had.

enlighten me otherwise.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
indeed, but are those differences relevant... You know what I am asking... Provide me with insight apart from the obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
The problem would not be how they process information, but the information which is processed. Even though they may think the same way, a blacksmith, a gardener, and an artist are 3 completely different people even if they make think in a similer fashion. Known facts, memories, and experiences will also play an important role in what kind of words, phrases, and external stimuli will evoke which emotional reaction and to which extent based on societal differences for the area and what they were taught growing up.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I guess there are just to many variables as you stated, it will remain a theory I guess.

Would it have mattered if they were triplets?

hmm... this is getting in the direction of "soul". That topic Im not sure even exists for me..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
I am absolutely certain that you will get major differences between answers of similary intelligent INTPs. Signify gives a good explanation why, the difference of the information processed is more important than the way you processes information.

Edit: who ever mentioned anything about a soul?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Well, in theory 3 intps exposed to the exact same stimuli with equal intellectual capabilities, values and appearances would be the same right?

3 clones? We know its possible...

The soul is the only thing I can think of that would separate us, I just dont know what a soul is..

As I said, this is gonna go nowhere quick, lol...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
Oh, so this is a question of Free Will? I don't believe in it...

But in order for 3 people to answer equally, not only their intellectual capabilities, values and appearances need to be the same, but their psyche (conscious and subconscious) needs to be in the same ''state'', which would only be possible if there where actually 3 separate worlds with all the same people in it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
now that is insight!

Maybe youve hit at the core of my question, something I may have subconsciously conjured with this thread seeking the truth...

oops, just lit the fuse on my head.. t-minus 10 seconds...
 

·
黐線 ~Chiseen~
Joined
·
5,241 Posts
3 INTPs + 1 INTP + 1 INTP = mega INTP-saur!

3 INTP's takes the place of the torso and legs, the other INTP takes place of the left arm, and the final INTP takes place for the right arm.

Together combined, they form Captain INTP! It's our hero who is going to take stupidity down to zero.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
3 INTPs + 1 INTP + 1 INTP = 5 losers :D Lets be realistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
INTP's don't like to hear this for some reason (pride?), but Jung says that introverted functions (which obviously includes Ti) are highly subjective in nature. Suspend your traditional understanding of the word "subjective" for a moment - what Jung is saying is that introverted functions focus on the "subject" (the self) first, and the "object" (the task at hand, the outer world, and physical objects like cars, etc.) second. How can one be truly objective if they focus on their self first? It's impossible. And this explains why 3 INTP's often arrive at 3 different conclusions. Ti, Fi, Ni, and Si are subjective. They focus on the self first - for example, Fi and Ti focus on its own internal values and principles. Likewise, Ni and Si perceive things in a very personalized way. The only proof you need of this is to pose a simple philosophical question to 2 INTP's and watch them disagree and debate for hours. If they were both totally and completely objective (impossible for anyone) they would agree on everything. But this isn't the case, because they are both bringing their own subjective (self created) mental constructs to the argument. We all see things through our own lens - we all bring presuppositions and preconceived ideas/experiences to the table. Anyone who thinks he is completely and totally objective is delusional. We can strive for objectivity, but that doesn't mean we ever truly reach it.

Conversely, extroverted functions focus on the "object" - this is why Fe-doms and Te-doms focus on things like "real world results", metrics, what everyone else wants, etc. Introverted functions don't do this as much - because they are focusing on the self first. I've used this example before, but if you've ever watched those TV shows for inventors such as "The Shark Tank", those 5 sharks sitting on the panel are probably all ENTJ's. They're all definitely Te-dom. If you watch that show, people will come on and talk about how awesome their new idea is, or their new product and how it's going to make millions once it hits the market. And the ENTJ's say, "How much do you have in sales to this point? How much money have you made so far with this product?" And a lot of them will say, "Uhhh...nothing yet." Or, "I made $15,000 in the last 2 years." And the sharks laugh at them and tell them to leave. This is because the Te doms are focusing on the "outer world", the objective facts, the "actual results". The inventors are often just focusing inward, on their "cool idea" and how it's "going to make millions" because it's such a great idea/invention. That's subjective, because there is not "real world data" to tell you it will make millions. If you've "actually" had $500,000 in sales, then the sharks get excited, because now they have data to show that people like your product. These subjective inventors might actually be right - their product might actually make millions some day...and the sharks may be wrong. But, you aren't going to convince the sharks to invest in something unless you can show them "objective results". Investing lots of money without first having some solid, real-world results, is too speculative for them. But, the introverted functions can dream as much as they want - the sky is the limit - because it's all internal. There's no danger or risk in dreaming or thinking big, idealistic thoughts.

So, my point here is that each INTP "functions" in a similar way, but they will argue/debate for the side of an issue that they want to support. So, one day they might argue one way, the next day they might argue on the other side of the same issue.

Here is Jung's description of Ti. Notice in his first paragraph he says, "Like every introverted type...". He is making the point that all introverted functions share this focus on internal things, rather than outer things. The bolding is not mine and I wasn't able to undo it, so there's no emphasis on the bolded parts.


Adapted from Jung, C.G.Psychological Types“:

The introverted thinking type is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated.

Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain (does something that is the opposite of what is usually done). When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children’s welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of réclame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone’s appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence.

His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the unconscious
. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering.

But the better one knows him, the more favourable one’s judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against ‘magical’ influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.
 

·
MOTM Feb 2010
Joined
·
4,773 Posts
It's absurd to think that every INTP is the same or even all that similar.

Should we just go ahead and make a list of psycho/physiological/social/unconscious/emotional/familial/economic/educational/experiential/neurotic characteristics that are not accounted for by MBTI?
 

·
MOTM Feb 2010
Joined
·
4,773 Posts
Three INTPs walk into a bar.


Just kidding. Three INTPs would never hang out together, and if they did they wouldn't go out to a public place.
Three INTPs grab a few six-packs of craft beer, head back to one of their basements and then try to decide who will be the Dungeon Master.
 

·
黐線 ~Chiseen~
Joined
·
5,241 Posts
Three INTPs would never hang out together, and if they did they wouldn't go out to a public place.
There's always Comic Book Shop! Library! Barnes & Nobles / Bookstores!

But but but... realistically, three INTP's would usually meet over skype or Ventrillo at some virtual world instead in some mmo. It beats sunlight and having to ... you know... avoid small talk and potential eye contact from people.... and then there's sunlight.... most of them dislikes sunlight.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
this thread could have easily been 3 istj's..... The point of the thread was realized a little quicker than I imagined.. But I suppose that was to be expected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Differences are just that: different.
I don't see why the quality of the answer should be affected by social upbringing. But if you're talking about content and syntax, yea, that's going to be all over the place, and it would be affected by too many things to count.

And I have no idea what you mean by 'the same' ... how are you measuring that?


PS:
Even 'identical twins' aren't identical when you get to the details of their lives, both mentally and physically. So the triplet thing wouldn't pan out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Just_Some_Guy
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top