I just took a quick online test and reaffirmed that I'm an INTP. The last one has always been the loosest, but I usually end up at a Perceiver.
My strength on each according to that test:
Introverted 100%
Intuitive 62%
Thinking 88%
Perceiving 33%
Somebody posted this about INTPs in paulp's comments:
Famous INTPs:
Socrates
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Sir Isaac Newton
U.S. Presidents:
- James Madison
- John Quincy Adams
- John Tyler
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
- Gerald Ford
William Harvey (pioneer in human physiology)
C. G. Jung, (Freudian defector, author of Psychological Types, etc.)
William James
Albert Einstein
Tom Foley (Speaker of the House--U.S. House of Representatives)
Henri Mancini
Bob Newhart
Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator (D.--NM)
Rick Moranis (Honey, I Shrunk The Kids)
Midori Ito (ice skater, Olympic silver medalist)
Tiger Woods
I guess this puts me in good company, but with a lot of my best work ahead of me hopefully...
Wow, this site is a profile of INTP. Highlights:
- The INTP is above all a thinker and his inner (private) world is a place governed by a strong sense of logical structure.
- Every experience is to be rigorously analysed, the task of the INTP's mind is to fit each encountered idea or experience into a larger structure defined by logic. For here is the central goal of the INTP: to understand and seek truth.
- The INTP is not interested in experiences themselves but is far more fascinated by concepts. The drive to understand things that are not yet understood is a very powerful force in the life of an INTP.
- This drive can override the experiential element so strongly that the INTP will become quickly bored with anything that he has successfully analysed to the point of understanding it. Once understood, it has nothing left to offer, once the satisfaction which comes with achieving the goal of understanding diminishes. Indeed, most primary interests of an INTP are things which he cannot fully understand, usually because they are highly complex or have some exotic, mystical element that does not yield to analysis. This is the real reason why INTPs are drawn to complexity: anything simple is too quickly understood and cannot hold the fascination for long.
" Similarly, proficiency in any area (which requires continual practice after understanding) is not such a driving force as it might be for NTJs, for example. While a judging NT will often seek to become master of his field, an INTP is satisfied by analysing it alone. "
More goods:
- Since accurate analysis needs to avoid becoming hampered with details or being influenced by the actions of others, the INTP invariably seeks to withdraw, at least in spirit, from the situation being considered.
- This detachment can sometimes be so marked that he will readily see himself as a neutral observer having no personal association with that going on around him (unless forced to become directly involved through an attack on his principles). [Sound familiar? Evolution hits close to home...]
- 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. [ha, that's what I'm doing right now]
- This is his Mission; to be the provider of clarity, and is often suspicious that he is the only person capable of this task. Here, the INTP risks being seen as over-critical, aloof and arrogant. On the whole, however, real arrogance is rare for INTPs for their desire is not to dominate others but simply to observe, analyse and clarify. Once the point has been clarified, the INTP withdraws quickly, for he prefers not to be in the limelight unless absolutely necessary. Hence, for most of the time, INTPs are easy-going and will fit in to others' needs, taking up the role of observer again.
Last one:
"To know is everything, to do is a lower order necessity, if it is necessary at all. This breeds the potential for lazy aloofness. The INTP is often satisfied simply by knowing that he could do something if he wished. This also leads to the danger of overestimating one's capabilities and losing a grip on reality"
7 comments:
ENTP
Profile at Typelogic.
Sounds about right.
You are in good company:
David Spade
Céline Dion
Matthew Perry
Yeah I saw that and sorta threw up inside my mouth.
But also:
Alexander the Great
Thomas Edison
Alfred Hitchcock
Wile E. Coyote
Could be worse I guess.
Did the Myer's-Brigg's test exist during the time of Socrates? I had no idea...
If not, explain how this fact was ascertained.
THE EVOLUTION OF MYERS-BRIGGS
Did Myers-Briggs evolve from dinosaurs? An evolutionary link between Myers-Briggs and reptiles in general has long been suspected. Early workers considered the similarities between the two groups, such as scaly feet, and shelled eggs, to indicate a remote link between the two groups. Over the years, the controversy has centred on which reptiles were closest relatives to early Myers-Briggs, such as the well-known Archaeopteryx, the first feather of which was found in 1861. In the 1870's Thomas Huxley and others had discussed a possible dinosaur origin for Myers-Briggs, pointing out that some dinosaurs, such as the small turkey-sized Compsognathus, were very lightly and delicately built in a similar way to Myers-Briggs. It was therefore either possible that Myers-Briggs had evolved from dinosaurs and had inherited similar characteristics, or that the similarities in the skeletons had come about as a result of similar lifestyles (what evolutionary biologists call convergent evolution).
In 1926, Gerhard Heilmann published a book, The Origin Of Myers-Briggs, in which he suggested convergent evolution was the result of the similarities, rathe than common ancestry. His opinion carried great influence, as workers then turned away from dinosaurs and looked to more primitive reptiles such as the archosaurs as Myers-Briggs ancestors. It has been suggested that this 'turning away' from dinosaurs as the ancestors of modern Myers-Briggs may have led to the widespread (and largely mistaken) belief that dinosaurs were sluggish and dim-witted, despite the occurrence of small and clearly highly active forms such as Compsognathus and Hypsilophodon. This opinion dominated until quite recently.
Since the 1960's and 1970's, however, the evidence from the skeletons has been reexamined, and there is now more evidence supporting common ancestry than convergent evolution. This evidence points to the fact that modern Myers-Briggs and theropod dinosaurs such as Deinonychus (of the Cretaceous period) shared a common ancestor in the Triassic, and that Myers-Briggs living today are in fact highly evolved theropod dinosaurs.
Thank you for the clarification? I'll assume you cleverly replaced a modern animal with Myers-Briggs. I still win.
Post a Comment