Talk:INTP

message: Third reason I hate Wikipedia, 70% of the material is plagiarized from the first three articles a person gets from searching for material. There is also the OR problem (as seen below). Seriously, the trash people spew.
*Agreed.  Way to spell plagiarized correctly.  --24.170.176.52 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please refrain from directly copying articles 

message: I just removed/edited the following section from the Si description: In life, an INTP frequently is completely oblivious to certain subtle changes such as the date, unless they are called to their attention. An INTP will frequently leave something lying on a desk, counter, etc., and it will become all but invisible to them until it is in the way or is needed. This is informed solely by the experience of the contributor and not by typological theory. 
Please try not to add "stuff you do, being an INTP, ya know". Morgansutherland 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with examples like this is that they're too specific.  Both intuition and introversion tend to focus on the internal world, so IN-- types may at times be oblivious to their external world (though this is perhaps less true of the INTJs than the other three types, due to their auxiliary extraverted thinking). To say that INTPs may sometimes fail to perceive objects in their external world because they're so focused on their internal one is probably true, and you could probably find a reliable source for that. But to say, for example (and I'm just making this up), that INTPs continually misplace their keys isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.  It's an anecdote. For the statement to be reliable, you'd need to be able to say something like, "According to a survey published in XXX, 83.2% of INTPs reported that they continually misplace their keys.  This compares to 45.6% for all types combined." Now that would be a compelling statistic if true (although, again, in this instance, it's completely made up). ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please refrain from adding personal experience 

message: INTPs tend to develop their S more as they get older.  This is similar to how ISTPs N tends to develop more with age.
stub for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
INTP should have its own article, not just a redirect to myers briggs.
Carl Jung, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and just about every famous mathematician were INTPs.
INTPs excel in the world of abstract thought and are excellent at recognizing patterns in what seems to be chaos.  The world of computer programming is a haven for INTPs.  In fact, the concept of a Wikipedia was probably dreamed up by one.
Richard M. Stallman is a classic case of INTP.  Insightful, quiet, logical, and rebellious.
Er.. RMS's diehard devotion to his cause makes him seem like maybe an INFJ. Definitely doesn't seem like an INTP.
INTPs tend to develop their S more as they get older.  This is similar to how ISTPs N tends to develop more with age.
INTPs, always open to new and perhaps even crazy ideas (see Dr. Emmett Brown in Back to the Future), push the limitations of scientific thought and architecture.  The frontiers of science are almost always discovered by INTPs.  In this way, they are very similar to ISTPs who push the boundaries of the physical world.
Whew, this is begging for revision.....  LOL
On the diehard devotion of some INTPs- this is the manifestation of our ESFJ shadow, our undeveloped and thus somewhat childish side--Scorpion451 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the size of this article and these discussions says a lot about INTPs (who are probably responsible for half the useless nitpicking on this site). And I really hope the list of famous examples is cited, because I saw half the names in other lists. I get the general impression that people only look at articles for their own type, and are likely to pick all their favorite people and throw them onto the list (by "get the general impression" I mean "I know for a fact").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.121.199 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Someone should really do a survey on how much the different MBTI types edit Wikipedia. I think that INTP's and INTJ's would probably be the ones editing pages the most.Dixon H. (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc. 

message: I just deleted the descriptions on all of these personality types.  A lot of them were copyvios from different sources, several of them being from http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/ , where they may or may not have been copied from other locations.  Nonetheless, the three theories of MBTI, Keirsey Temperaments, and Socionics are quite different and require different descriptions of types, functions, relations, and other concepts.  Socionics especially differs from the other two.  The three theories should all be expanded upon in Wikipedia, but it is impossible to do this while there is a conglomeration of these three theories and they are treated as one and the same. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A lot of them were copyvios from different sources I suggest going to the official sources and getting permission. For MBTI, http://www.myersbriggs.org/ is the official site of the Myers & Briggs Foundation, http://www.aptcentral.org/ is the official site of the Association for Psychological Type, and http://www.capt.org/ is the official site of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. For Keirsey Temperament, http://www.keirsey.com/ is the official site of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, another credible resource is Linda V. Berens who worked with David Keirsey Sr. Her site is http://www.tri-network.com/ for Interstrength Associates, formerly Temperament Research Institute. I do not have any suggestions for official sources on Socionics. I hope this helps. --Michael 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type descriptions 

message: Does anyone know the source of the claim that the MBTI is 70% accurate? I have a copy of the second edition of the MBTI manual (1985), and it says 75%. My understanding is that the instrument has become more accurate over time, not less. If you've got a newer version of the manual, I'd appreciate your input. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The MBTI instrument

message: Someone deleted the link I placed to INTPCentral.com, which is by far the largest INTP forum.  There is a link to a different forum at the top of the article, which is not the place for it.  I am deleting the link at the top and adding the INTPCentral link back at the bottom.  Please do not delete it without discussing here.  Thanks.  Tokipin 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it back in one of my edits, not knowing it was removed before or that there was something here referencing it. I think for a lot of people, the link sets off some advertising red-flags, so to prevent anyone from getting into a long-term edit war they're not aware of I'm about to add a comment before the link that asks people to mention something here before removing it. --Aristeo (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to INTPCentral.com 

message: It basically quotes verbatim snippets of various online personality test results (I happen to be familiar with these, having taken pretty much all of them in another, brighter period of my life, before I learned what pseudoscience is). Issues of copyvio aside, it is completely out of place to have this prominent chunk of text rambling on the nature and characteristics of the INTP as if they, or this "type" existing at all for that matter, were some sort of established fact. I call for this section and its analogues in the other type pages to be either re-written from an encyclopedic perspective or axed entirely. --AceMyth 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Are you referring to a specific section anywhere? It would be helpful if you could point to actual examples, or even quote the entire irrelevent section if it is short enough. 2) The question of the existence of the INTP type is invalid; since this is a page ABOUT the INTP type, the existence of the type itself is a basic axiom. I believe the validity of the MBTI is addressed on the MBTI page; it is redundant and - dare I say - unencyclopedic to bring the issue up on each of the sixteen pages. --Chainedwind 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I'm not suggesting that the issue be fully addressed on all sixteen pages. That would be redundant. 2. To wit: "since this is a page ABOUT the INTP type, the existence of the type itself is a basic axiom" - Nope. The axiom is not that actual people are INTPs but that there exists such a concept as the INTP type and that it is notable because it has received coverage and attention. The same is true of Cold Fusion and Perpetual Motion- yet you don't see text there to the extent of "Type III perpetual motion machines work by tapping the nth dimension then inverting the polarity on the neutron flow..." and so on. And  that's exactly the kind of thing going on this article ("INTP types are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals...", "An insulted INTP, however, has a tendency to unveil their full mastery of logical intuition..."). I'm not looking at a total re-write here as much as a change of perspective, and, appropriately, tone. --AceMyth 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying. However, what's the alternative? Change all references to "INTP individuals" to "hypothetical INTP individuals"? Obviously that's not a good solution, but having been hammered by physics for the last two hours, I can't think of anything else. --Chainedwind 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personality description" formulation(s) completely unencyclopedic 

message: The current hyperlink directed to a urbandictionary.com entry on a sexual term.  I removed the link.  Anyone who knows where it originally directed to should replace it with the correct site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: INTPCentral link

message: There is a comment before this link in the article that says "Please see talk page before removing this link", yet there is nothing on the talk page about why this link shouldn't be removed. I have removed it because it is an example of "links normally to be avoided" in the External Links guideline (it's a discussion group). These links are discouraged because discussion forums contain original research and personal opinions, both of which go against core Wikipedia principles neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources. If you would like to add the link back again, please explain why we should ignore the External Links guideline and go against the core principles mentioned. Thanks, Somno (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not there as a source of information in the way that you're thinking. Consider the link a recommendation for visitors to observe large populations, as it were, of INTPs.
--68.100.120.39 (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a scientific lab helping people find test subjects. ;) IMO, the link still doesn't belong. Somno (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several other ways to look at it: An article about RPGs has external links to continually updating collections of RPGs; similarly, INTPc is a continually updating collection of INTPs. The Barack Obama article has a link to the subject's website; "INTP" is not a person, but this is pretty much the closest you can get to an official INTP website. I can see the point of not linking discussion forums in general, but the thing is, INTPc is pretty big (in the influence sense) as far as INTP-related sites go, you know? 68.100.120.39 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Or, as the article states, only the person taking the test can confirm their type for themselves. A decent amount of INTPc involves threads where people attempt to type themselves and ask for help. While that help may not be professional or totally informed, which seems to be Somno and the External Links guideline's concern, I think the INTPc link should remain (with a note of caution), only because of the subject matter of the article. I would NOT generally like to see links to forums on Wikipedia, but I was disappointed the link was not here so that is my two cents. The word of caution could be something along the lines of "the opinions expressed on this site may not reliable and often contain original research", with wiki links to what those terms mean. What do people think about that? Mabsal (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to forums should not be included according to the External Links guideline. Wikipedia is not a catch-all source for any possible discussion on the topic; it's an encyclopedia.  If people want to find an INTP forum, they can use a search engine. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: INTP central link

message: I'm going to perform the redirection, as it is only confusion is stemming from this pair of articles pointing towards each other. A comparison between the function models makes it clear: INTP corresponds to LII, not ILI. Note that ILI's most confident function is their ability to make plans (introverted intuition), none of which is discussed in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of which Socionics type the Myers-Briggs INTP corresponds to. The question is, if a person is looking for the Socionics INTp article, and ends up at the Myers-Briggs INTP article, which article should they be redirected to? Socionics INTp is ILI. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  precisely; what the MBTI INTP is in socionics is irrelevant because the MBTI INTP is not anything in socionics (or at least, there is no evidence of any correlation).  the only thing that they meaningfully share is notation, so the INTP should reflect the ILI page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTP =/= ILI 

message: I created templates for text that's the same across all 16 MBTI type articles to eliminate the hours of work it takes to update the same text 16 times. This is a recommended use for templates according to Wikipedia policy WM:TEMP. 
To edit the templates: 
1. Click the Edit link on the section of the article you want to change. 
2. Select and copy the title of the template page (the text between the double braces). 
3. Paste the copied text into the Wikipedia search box and press Go (not Search). 
This will take you to the template. Make sure that the changes you make to the templates are appropriate for all 16 MBTI type articles! (ENFJ, ISTP, etc.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: The MBTI, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, and related Jung Typology assessments use the original spelling, Extraversion, rather than the modern corruption, Extroversion. In this context, Extraversion is jargon and should be thus spelled. ThreeOfCups (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of extraversion 

message: Sensing is correctly identified in the article as the tertiary cognitive function of INTPs—that is, the third-level function after Thinking (dominant) and Intuition (secondary), with Feeling as the inferior function. However, experts dispute whether the tertiary function has the same orientation as the dominant function, or the opposite orientation. Jung and Myers held that the orientation of the tertiary was the opposite of the dominant. Modern theorists tend to disagree. I think it's better to leave the orientation off, to avoid a lengthy discussion that seems out of place in this article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensing as the tertiary function 

message: For a discussion about the logo and border color, see Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Remove or keep the fancy logos from the articles?. Please don't make a significant change to the logo or border color without discussing it there first. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo and border color 

message: CAPT says 3-5%, Keirsey says 1%. Several sources which seem to be derived from Keirsey also say 1%, but since they're not independent, they can't be used to support the Keirsey claim. Also, the KTS and MBTI don't correlate exactly, so it's not surprising that their figures differ. All sources fall within the range of 1-5%, so it's appropriate to use the range. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: INTP as a percentage of the population

message: Upon visiting intp.org (reference #12), Firefox claims the site may be malicious, linking to this Google safe browsing page. Has that site been compromised? Shouldn't the link to it be removed? --Djmaze (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  intp.org site considered suspicious by Google 

message: The article states that, "Their impatience with seemingly indefensible ideas can make them particularly devastating at debate."  This sentence seems somewhat ambiguous to me.  Are the devastatingly good at debate, devastatingly bad at debate, or devastating to the debate itself (meaning that they're not just bad at debate but that they actually hinder a discussion).  I have my own perception of the statement based mostly on my experience with INTPs but I can see how one could come to any of those three conclusions after reading the statement.
After reading through the history of the article, the original version of the statement was, "Their impatience with seemingly indefensible ideas can make them particularly devastating at debate since they are driven to fully understand what they are discussing from all relevant angles. Their impatience with ideas that are indefensible often leads them to "go for the jugular"."
That statement feels like OR which is, I assume, why it was removed.  Does anyone have any feelings about or solutions to this statement? OlYeller21Talktome 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devastating at debate 

message: It looks like the paragraph describing the functions is somehow switched with the such of INTJ. Dominant function for INTP is Ni, not Ti (that's the dominant function for INTJ). Conversely, the INTJ page states the correct functions for INTP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.224.169 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is how it is per the MBTI; I'm not sure how Socionics works, exactly, but you may be thinking of that. Honestly, I think functions are crap anyway; I usually test as INTP (though I've also been INFP a few times) and when I've tried tests based on the functions, my orderings have looked nothing like the pre-determined ones. I prefer the simple four letters. To get back on topic, though, the sources regarding the MBTI that mention functions unanimously have ours as Ti/Ne/Si/Fe, sometimes with Se instead of Si. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in describing functions? 

message: The lead says, "INTPs are relatively rare, accounting for 1–5% of the U.S. population." I think we should update this article with a global perspective. Is anyone able to find research we could cite about its occurrence in other countries please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global perspective 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote]]