Other types, share your stories with INTPs

LittleLetterLabels

LittleLetterLabels

Newbie
MBTI
INTP
Hey INFJs and the rest of you people,

What are some funny stories, or obnoxious or baffling traits or tendencies you've noticed with your INTP friends?

PS: I'm an INTP. I'm working on learning more about my type and its stereotypical shortcomings, because it helps me to see myself more clearly! Don't worry about hurting my feelings. They're buried deep down in my function stack so I have a tendency to forget to care that they exist! :p
 
One time after a long night of drinking my friend woke up with his head under a running faucet and his leg in a trash can.

Typical intp morning.
 
I had a male friend for about 2 years who we shared the same birthday and he was an INTP and in love with me and I kind of knew it but I didn't feel the same way and I was pretty young so I just kinda let the friendship continue and I just remember him being extremely passive generally and unemotional and one time I complained about not being able to connect with him emotionally and he seemed incapable of it and he just kinda was like "I don't know how sorry" and it was the most awkward conversation ever.

I dated an INTP who I was super into and we broke up because he showed up for a date at my house but instead of pulling into the driveway just kept driving and I didn't hear from him for like two days and he apologized and said he "got really nervous" and we basically didn't talk again after that. He confessed to me that he found out that year at age 23 he had been using can openers wrong and subsequently I realized so had I.
 
INTP friends always have an explanation. Always. And it's always elaborate and structured. Always. And there's always a quizzical look. And when having meals with them, best to have a pen and paper and a smartphone on hand because conversations about anything and everything would be endless, and often require visualization because the perspectives are different. Chatboxes with them are links and links of references and funny emojis. Emo conversations are different too. They have a way of relaying emotional experiences as though it were a puzzle and they would explain its mechanisms. It's some of the most interesting conversations I've ever had. Arguments are not arguments at all. And even then it's super fun. When they're stressed, they space out. It shows on their faces too, usually that space under their eyes. The artistic side is so structured and disciplined, almost differently creative but intriguing nonetheless. It's easier to have discussions with them because it usually leads towards a resolution. But the workplace is messy. They think it's art. But when they do clean up, it's always a spree. Anyway, they're cool.
 
Equal parts Quiet and Zany. They'll make a joke that's too obtuse for me to not lose my shit over. Specialized knowledge to understand the joke.

I love to do story time with them. Ask them about something super interesting to them and let them explain it in detail
 
mintoots said:
They have a way of relaying emotional experiences as though it were a puzzle and they would explain its mechanisms.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, I have experienced it both ways myself. It's the difference in Descartes's clara et distincta, or maybe like Wittgenstein's sachverhalt and tatsache - a fact that stands on its own and a compound fact. Usually people perceive emotion as clear, that is as a singularity which can be observed as an aggregate of its constituent parts. But transitioning into the distinct mode of thinking is like being completely detached from material and observing things as they exist in the logical space, following their chains of causality and reading the properties of the set which the thing represents. This can sometimes feel like an emotional experience in itself, because frankly, it's almost like being on drugs.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
That makes sense, I have experienced it both ways myself. It's the difference in Descartes's clara et distincta, or maybe like Wittgenstein's sachverhalt and tatsache - a fact that stands on its own and a compound fact. Usually people perceive emotion as clear, that is as a singularity which can be observed as an aggregate of its constituent parts. But transitioning into the distinct mode of thinking is like being completely detached from material and observing things as they exist in the logical space, following their chains of causality and reading the properties of the set which the thing represents. This can sometimes feel like an emotional experience in itself, because frankly, it's almost like being on drugs.
Click to expand...

Yeah they sometimes look high when they talk about it. :grimacing:
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
That makes sense, I have experienced it both ways myself. It's the difference in Descartes's clara et distincta, or maybe like Wittgenstein's sachverhalt and tatsache - a fact that stands on its own and a compound fact. Usually people perceive emotion as clear, that is as a singularity which can be observed as an aggregate of its constituent parts. But transitioning into the distinct mode of thinking is like being completely detached from material and observing things as they exist in the logical space, following their chains of causality and reading the properties of the set which the thing represents. This can sometimes feel like an emotional experience in itself, because frankly, it's almost like being on drugs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have experienced that too, though I'm pretty sure the experience I had wasn't in Latin. :(

PS. While sachverhalt is an atomic fact, I think tatsache isn't exactly meant to denote a compound, but rather the logical form of the compound (when the proposition picturing it is true). Wittgenstein's reasoning is a little convoluted on that front, though.
 
Ren said:
PS. While sachverhalt is an atomic fact, I think tatsache isn't exactly meant to denote a compound, but rather the logical form of the compound (when the proposition picturing it is true).
Click to expand...

I'm just realising most people will be like "WTF is he talking about is he high"
 
Ren said:
PS. While sachverhalt is an atomic fact, I think tatsache isn't exactly meant to denote a compound, but rather the logical form of the compound (when the proposition picturing it is true). Wittgenstein's reasoning is a little convoluted on that front, though.
Click to expand...

You mean like the difference between the proposition and the propositional sign?

"3.13 To the proposition belongs everything which belongs to the projection, but not what is projected. Therefore the possibility of what is projected but not this itself."

Reading Tractatus is like a really fun torture.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
You mean like the difference between the proposition and the propositional sign?

"3.13 To the proposition belongs everything which belongs to the projection, but not what is projected. Therefore the possibility of what is projected but not this itself."
Click to expand...

Yes. I think the best way to distinguish proposition from propositional sign is to think of it as the distinction between formal and natural language. To illustrate:

(∃x)Hx (formal language)

"There are humans" (natural language)

(∃x)Hx is the proposition, while "There are humans" is the propositional sign. (∃x)Hx contains the possibility of what is projected ("There are humans") but not this itself. E.g., H is only the possibility of signifying "human". It could signify something else. Only in the actual proposition "There are humans" is the signifying (what is projected) effective.

So in (∃x)Hx you have the form of the sense of the proposition, but not the content, which requires projection onto the world via the sign (in this case, words: "there", "are", "humans").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top