Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scorpiomover


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign


  • Biography
    After watching "As good as it gets", my friends said I was Melvin.
  • Location
    Londinium, UK.
  • Occupation
  • Interests
    Computers, maths, epistemology, logic, Yoga, martial arts, nutrition.
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    Remember, you're a Womble.
  1. If you have a look at the equivalent article for INTPs, you'll note that as INTPs get older, they develop their Si & Fe. INTPs develop their Si as more of an interest in things like history and traditions, which fills in the gaps of why some of their Ne ideas don't work, as they've usually been tried before by some people some time in the past, and which in turn allows them to select the Ne ideas that have a good chance of working. Then as they develop Fe, they start to work on understanding other people's feelings and how that motivates other people's behaviour. They start to change their Ti logical arguments into things that are more emotionally pleasing to other people and less likely to upset them. As a result, people become more comfortable listening to their Ti logical arguments and more willing to accept them. This results in their ideas being more accepted by other people, which means they can accomplish far more by the actions of the group than they usually accomplished just by themselves. This leads to INTPs becoming more confident and competent as they get older. INTJs have a similar trajectory. Usually, INTJs have good practical arguments. But as they develop their Fi understanding of their own desires, they come to realise that sometimes they are only focussed on their own goals, and not taking other people's needs and goals into account in their plans, which p*sses other people off as they feel like they are being run roughshod over. Then they start to ease up on other people, and are more open to other's suggestions to tweak their plans to make them acceptable to other people as well. Then when they develop their Se, they step back again and take a broader view of experience. Their Ni ideas and visions tend to be based on their own physical experiences, which tends to make them highly optimised for their own situation, but more and more disadvantageous the further and further someone gets from their own situation. So when they develop their Se, they start to notice other people's experiences that don't match their own , and start to either expand their Ni to take other people's situations into account, or they stop expecting that their Ni ideas and visions will apply to everyone. Either way, they become more easy-going, which allows other people the room to live their life, and so makes them much easier to get on with. This leads of INTJs being more easy-going and laid back as they get older.
  2. Ironic. Out of 150, one guy on my maths degree said in the first month, that he'd chosen to do maths specifically to become an actuary. He was a recovering alcoholic. One of the few people in university who never touched a drop of alcohol, and I never saw in any of the pubs or clubs while we were there.
  3. I suppose that you could use speech as a form of protectionism, such as by arguing that everyone in America should "Buy American" to be patriotic and to boost your country's economy. But I was just illustrating how your response was in context to your analogy. So it's not necessary to make that argument to make the point.
  4. Eating and sleeping were examples. You still have legs. There's still a Sun in the sky. British people still speak English. Laissez-faire capitalism is still in play, just like it was in the eighteenth century and before. People still sit on chairs, sleep on beds, use knives, forks and spoons to eat with. A lot of things haven't changed that people take for granted. If a company holds a competition to promote a product, members aren't allowed to enter the competition, and if they do, they have to be disqualified. But on the internet, no-one is required to prove their identity before posting ratings. It's well-known by those that use internet ratings agencies religiously, that many of the favourable ratings are written by company employees. It's interesting that you mentioned Coke. Pepsi worked hard to compete with Coke. They even worked hard to make Pepsi taste better than Coke. But most people were still preferring Coke to Pepsi. So they came up with the Pepsi challenge. They'd ask random strangers in the street to taste both, and say which tasted better. Most people still tasted Coke. So then they added a blindfold. When people tasted them knowing which was which, the majority said Coke tasted better. When they were wearing the blindfold, the majority said that Pepsi tasted better. So after they'd found that Pepsi tasted better, they took off the blindfold, saw it was Pepsi, and then tried both again. They STILL found that Coke tasted better, even after they'd already have 100% proof that they preferred Pepsi. THAT is the power of advertising. Gas 'wall brackets' were used in place of the sconce (a candle holder that is attached to a wall with an ornamental bracket). Not usually, only to replace the candles that were already wall-mounted. Speak for yourself. I live in England. There were 10,000 homeless kids sleeping on the streets. Sean Connery said in an interview that when he grew up in the 1930s, he slept in a drawer at night. If you want to come see the slum housing, there's still plenty around from that era. Technological changes accomplished a lot. Thanks to scientific advances in feeds and cross-breeding, by the 1970s, milk production of cows had increased by 400%. It turned out to be double the demand. So cross-breeding and lower-quality feeds were used to reduce milk production of cows down to about half that. Yes, everyone in the know in the private sector knows about this. There's the Peter Principle, which was a big problem in the private sector in the 1970s, but is still a problem in the private sector. There's also the budget problem. If you don't spend your department's entire budget, management say "Oh, you obviously don't need it all then", and then cut next year's budget to what you didn't use, even if last year you had very few expenditures and this year your IT department need to upgrade your systems to keep them commercially compliant. So in order to ensure that their budget won't keep getting cut until they can't afford their needs, whatever a department doesn't spend during the year gets blown on anything they can in the run-up to the end of the fiscal year at the beginning of April, usually on incredibly stupid adverts. It's a known thing if you work in the private sector. Obviously you're intelligent. You just won't fall for any simple ruse. Industries would need to spend millions on psychological studies to come up with extremely subtle techniques to manipulate the human brain. But industries make hundreds of billions of dollars every year. So paying for psychological studies on how to manipulate the human brain, and then applying these techniques, is chicken feed compared to the returns. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tragedy-of-the-commons.asp The example of the Newfoundland fishermen is found in many places in Europe as well. In those cases, as you can read, the private sector fished as much as they could, which then depleted natural stocks to the point where the private sector could no longer catch enough fish to cover their overheads, which was why the industry collapsed. The private sector had killed the golden goose. In response, governments issued fishing quotas to ensure that the private sector don't kill their own fishing industry profits yet again. Some people fish no more than the reproductive cycles of the fish can cope with and stay within the quotas. Many capitalists feel those quotas are restrictions that they should not be forced to adhere to, because they are being denied the opportunity to make lots more money now. So the question is: Do you remove the quotas and let the private sector kill their own income? Or do you ignore those who are not thinking about their future, and keep them from making mistakes due to short-sightedness that will cost them their livelihood and leave them unemployed and demanding handouts from the government? I agree. But to make money, you have to invest. Planning ahead requires extra investment in the early days, which requires taxpayers to pay for those higher investments with higher taxes. Putting up taxes p*sses off voters. People are usually only willing to pay for things that they can already see are a problem, which is once the problem has already occurred, and so is purely reactive. Corporations have their own assets and are often more proactive. But they have shareholders, who also think short-term except for those things that will directly increase profits for their shares and thus that corporation alone. E.G. in the 1950s and 1960s, the government invested many billions building a system of motorways across the country. Since then, corporations have moved from using rail to using huge articulated lorries to transport goods to and from all over Europe. Driving on the motorway, these juggernauts are everywhere. I drive on the M25 to and from work. I can see the level of damage. There are serious cracks that stretch for almost a mile in some places. It's only a matter of time until the motorways collapse entirely and the whole system breaks down. But we aren't seeing British corporations banding together to take a small portion of the trillions they earn each year in total, to establish private repair crews to the toll their massively heavy lorries are doing to the motorways. They don't get a direct profit from it. So it's only a matter of time until they collapse. That, too, is a tragedy of the commons. Developers don't want to set up home-owners' associations before they sell the apartments, as it would put buyers off. After everyone bought the properties and started seeing their building get worse, some of them realised that if they didn't start doing something to stop the rot, then the market price of their apartments would take a serious nosedive, and so convinced the rest of the home-owners in their block to set up an association to pay fees for general maintenance and set regulations to keep the place nice. Not everyone was convinced. You can see the blocks which weren't convinced, because when they were built, they looked really nice, and now are horrible places that only the poor are willing to live in. Plenty of places like that, all over London and the UK. If it was a dictatorship, then you can kill the dictator and that's it. But when it's a government that the people want, and they are more interested in having a government than a particular person leading them, then even when the person falters and collapses, the people simply install someone else. An example is Britain in World War 2. The PM at the time, Neville Chamberlain, signed a peace treaty with Hitler. Then Hitler broke the treaty, which meant that it was only a matter of time until Germany would try to invade Britain. Chamberlain couldn't handle it and resigned. Churchill, who was rather a forlorn and ignored back-bencher, was willing to step up and take up the challenge of standing up to the Nazis. The people wanted someone to lead them. So they got behind him and Churchill became the head of the new government. After the war ended, Churchill turned out to be a great war-time leader, but a poor peace-time leader. So the people voted for someone else. Had the British seen government the way you do, then the government would have collapsed, and it was the government that organised everyone to hold off the Nazis until the Americans could use the UK as a staging area to launch their troops into Europe. If not for the Churchill government, we'd all be speaking German now. Easy to deal with. If there is one farmer with a gun, you send 10 soldiers to his door. If there are 2 farmers with guns in the home, you send 20. You don't send them all at once to every home. You go to each village and each door, one by one. No-one has the chance to inform anyone else about what is going on, because you've already overpowered them. You'll lose a few soldiers here and there. But the odds are always 10-to-1 in favour of the farmers being shot. They don't stand a chance. The primary asset is the land that can grow food and its natural resources. If you can't conquer the people, they'll hold the land, and you can't gain anything. Worst comes to worst, you kill the majority, and send some of the poorer people in your own country there. They are now able to become land-owners and become much wealthier than before. So many want to go. Then they have lots of kids to have more people to maximise use of the land and to thus make as much profit off the land as much as possible. Been done before in Northern Ireland. World War 2 had a horrendous cost. It took 4 1/2 years to subdue Germany and Japan. Half a million British people died. Half of London was blown to bits by bombs. The British incurred such costs, that they had to borrow millions from the Americans. They only paid the debt off after over 40 years. Food was rationed for about 14 years, because the country was still in dire straits for 9 years after the war ended. Marching to Berlin and smashing the Nazi regime was incredibly difficult, cost millions of lives, and cost in today's money, probably on the region of 4 trillion dollars just for the USA, and about 1.5 trillion dollars to the UK in today's money. Afterwards, Germany and Japan were smashed to pieces. America had to institute the Marshall Plan, and rebuild them. As to whether or not Germany and Japan was obedient, I suggest that you take a look at the car market as an example: people buy Japanese and German cars, not American. Nissan, Honda, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Suzuki, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche are extremely popular car brands that sell well all over the world. Which American car makers sell well outside of the USA and in the rest of the world? Ford. That's it! ONE American car manufacturer has significant sales outside of the USA. You don't see cars from Chrysler, GM or any other American car manufacturer outside of the USA other than Ford. So who exactly is being obedient here? ...... added to this post 16 minutes later: In summary: So we are all in favor of homeowner's associations that are binding indefinitely. We may or may not all be opposed to Genghis Khan invading most of Europe and exacting tribute or enslaving the inhabitants. We may or may not all be opposed to Genghis Khan institutionalizing his power by declaring all land in his ownership and posing yearly demands for the right to remain living in the territory. So, assuming you are opposed to Genghis Khan and Viking attacks, what distinguishes a large homeowners association from Viking raids? What underlying moral principle draws a distinction between these two types? Easy enough to figure out what distinguishes the Vikings, Saracens and Genghis Khan from a home-owner's association. The Vikings were originally traders. The Viking raiders were private sector companies that discovered there was more profit to raids than trade. Some of the Vikings traded with British people. Some of the Vikings decided they'd make more money by raiding. Some of the Vikings decided they'd make more money by invading and conquering part of Britain, and did. That was it. It was pure capitalism. Home-owner's associations are unpaid organisations that hold elections to decide their president and representatives of their members. The president and representatives then enact and enforce regulations on the members, including mandatory fees on all members that go towards services that are used free of charge for all members. If you buy an apartment in the block, you have to follow the regulations and pay the charges that the association sets. If you build a new apartment, same thing. Everyone has to. You don't get a choice. It doesn't matter that you didn't sign anything. You have to follow the regulations and pay the fees.
  5. Cool. I'm not beautiful. Guess that's not so bad after all.
  6. He obviously has a reason why he wants to go. He is probably trying to resolve a problem that he has tried to resolve by more conventional and rational means, but has failed to succeed. So he's doing a Hail Mary pass. This problem bothers him so much that he reckons its worth trying to drink several milkshakes that cost $260 each, even if it's a long shot that has very little chance of paying off. If you want to help him, find out what his problem is. Then help him to achieve it. Don't worry about the milkshakes. When the problem is fully resolved to his satisfaction, he'll stop taking them automatically.
  7. Hello. I can certainly see why you have the goals that you do. Glad to see that you want to stamp out harmful beliefs. The media has been blaming religions for lots of things for decades, and people have been growing up watching the goggle box or its modern equivalent YouTube, and been believing it wholesale. E.G. lots of kids grew up watching Doctor Who. In "The key to time", Doctor Who said that in medieval times, people believed that the Earth was flat. According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[4] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".
  8. 1. I suggest you look back at the discussion I had with him. We were discussing if America was using tariffs to achieve protectionism. So he was commenting on the same topic as you claim to be commenting on. 2. Considering that you think that he commented on their constitutionality, while you commented on if they are protectionist, then according to you, your example should be the following: 1. Free speech is guaranteed by the constitution. 2. Un-free speech is not protectionist.
  9. From my observations, women who weren't intimidated by men, usually came across as being confident and secure, and those who were, came across as lacking in confidence and insecure. Some women were intimidated by some men and not others. They came across as confident and secure about the men they did not feel intimidated by, and lacking in confidence and insecure about the men that they felt intimidated by. It didn't seem to matter how or why they felt intimidated, whether it was that they were worried about being physically assaulted by the man, or if they just felt intimidated by their intelligence. Just an observation. This song kinds of sums up men's attitudes: Perfect 10 by The Beautiful South. Different guys like different women. There's always one girl that no-one else likes, that makes one guy go ga-ga. There's always one girl that most men think is a stunner, that does nothing for one guy. But overall, most guys tend to prefer women with a bit of meat on her bones, something in between the extremes, not overly skinny and not overly fat, not overly muscular and not overly limp, not overly tall and not overly short. Same for boobs and bums. Don't quite know why. Of course, that may not be how many women see things. But there's always some guys who will go ga-ga for a particular woman, and some guys who think she's nothing special. Looks are always subjective. Personality counts too. Confidence and a smile do wonders for a woman's looks.
  10. Not really. They're just more used to being dressed up and expected to be attractive. So far more guys are likely to hit on them. As a result, to do their job, they have to become used to knocking back guys who hit on them. So they seem to be comfortable when they are doing their job and knocking you back. But they are used to being hit on. Watch what happens when a woman who is used to being hit on regularly, meets a guy who isn't hitting on them. They're not used to it and come up with all sorts of crazy explanations. Often try and flirt with him outrageously to get him to show he wants her. A lot more common than most guys think. A lot of women don't want to make money from their looks, partly because they are likely to get pawed by lots of guys at work. They'd rather get it on with their b/f and have their work life free from assault. They have a busy job. They don't have to get dressed up for their job, and have to deal with lots of messes. So they don't bother to get dressed up, and look pretty normal. So most guys don't rate them and don't give them a second look. Then when you see them dressed up, it's like you made a date with a 5 who turned out to be a 10.
  11. I was considering being an actuary after graduating university, as they prefer maths graduates even more than graduates with an actuarial degree. The average salary for an actuary in the USA is $107,000. Experienced fellows have the potential to earn from $150,000 to $250,000 annually, and many actuaries earn more than that. I'm willing to bet a lot of guys would get an erection for a job that pays that well.
  12. Black swan theory As someone pointed out to me: if nuclear power station are so safe that they are only likely to have a catastrophic meltdown once every 20,000 years, and there are 1,000 nuclear power stations operational in the world right now, then we can expect that on average, one nuclear power station will have a catastrophic meltdown once every 20 years. A more relevant example: in 2015, 1,732 people died in road accidents in the UK, out of 67.7 million people. So the odds of dying in a car accident was less than 1 in 37 thousand. What keeps that number so low, is Defensive Driving, anticipating the potential for an accident in any situation, and taking steps to make the likelihood of an accident as low as possible: If you anticipate and prepare for even remote dangers ahead of time, then you can avoid 99.9% of problems with very little effort. E.G. if someone goes faster than the speed limit to make a meeting, they might save 10 minutes on their journey. But if they have an accident on the way, they can't make their meeting anyway. Plus, now they are without a car until they can buy another one. A new car will cost them thousands of dollars. A decent used one can take weeks to find and plenty of time. Plus, they lose a good portion of their new claims bonus and their insurance premiums increase sharply. They end us losing so many hours and so much money, that they lose a lot more time than they gained by all those journey than they broke the speed limit. So overall, they lose out in the long term.
  13. It's mainly because they make shed-loads of money for the companies they work for. Computer programming is very, very interesting. The top programmers at Microsoft, Google, etc, are multi-millionaires and billionaires. Stock-market traders get paid a fortune. Many of them don't have O-levels, and thus high-school dropouts by age 16. These days, actuaries develop formulas for insurance sales-people to calculate the premiums for each person. All the sales-people need is a calculator and the formula. In 2015, the health insurance industry had revenues of 848.2 billion dollars. If you can make the formula more accurate by 0.005%, you've just increased the industry's profits by 42 million dollars for this year, next year, and every year after! Even if your correction is only valid for 5 years, that's 212 million dollars! Who wouldn't want to pay that guy a fortune, to hang on to him?
  14. ENTJs. Practical as ever.
  15. I did. But you know us INTPs. Like to consider every possibility, no matter how remote.