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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scorpiomover

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • 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. Fortunately for you, we have these things called "contracts", such as employment contracts, which treat consent as an ongoing process, by the inclusion of clauses dealing with what happens when the employer or employee wish to stop consenting to the ongoing employment situation. There are even verbal contracts within the BDSM community that deal with issues of consent as an ongoing process, by specifying a "stop word". When one of the parties wishes to end the sexual encounter, they use the stop word. So there is plenty of evidence that shows that reasonable, intelligent, sane women have no problems with the use of contracts to define their sexual encounters. In fact, contracts such as these protect them from rape. Companies and people use contracts to protect them from being raped financially by their partners in a business deal, and from being raped financially by their employers and their employees. Ordinary citizens use receipts as proof of purchase in case they are sold duds and need to return the goods. It's the same with any sort of endeavour. Right now, most women do not use contracts when it comes to sex. It is not hard to understand that by denying themselves the protection of the law that they use in business and in almost every other aspect of the real world, that 98% of rape victims might have to see their tormentors go free, and indeed this is the case. Maybe one day, more people might understand the benefits of reason, rational thinking, and logic, and start using contracts to legislate their own sexual encounters. Mind you, then they would have to let their reason rule their irrational insecurities.
  2. There's been mention of a need for legal contracts between consenting adult sexual partners before. I suspect that most men would not have an issue with such a contract, as most men see sex as a practical matter that would need things to be clarified. Yes, they apply to unmarried couples as well. The policies of the CSA are a matter of law, as the CSA implements the laws of the UK and the legal rulings of its courts which apply to demands for child support.
  3. It's a bit of both. But let's take an example: the movements of the planets. AFAIK, you only need Newton's Three Laws of Motion, and Newton's Law of Gravitation, to calculate the main movements of the 9 planets and the Sun. Not exactly hard to understand, and certainly within the scope of the science taught in basic high schools. However, each of their individual masses generates a force on each of the other planets for each moment. At each moment, the sum total of those forces causes each of those planets and the Sun to change their velocity, and their previous velocity changes their location, which changes the distance between the planets, which changes the strength and the direction of the forces of those planets and the Sun on each other. Because the forces keep changing so frequently as to almost make the changes continuous, calculus is needed to calculate the forces. However, you're having to deal with 10 different entities. So one needs some kind of calculus of 10 vectors, some kind of Matrix Calculus, which is beyond the scope of high school maths and physics, and even beyond most university maths courses. That sort of calculation is well beyond the typical scientific background provided in high schools.
  4. Yes, and no. Wealth, status and power are attractive to both sexes, as being with such a person means that you can get much more of what you want. Power couples where the woman has the greater wealth, status and power, included Demi Moore & Ashton Kutcher, Madonna & Guy Ritchie and J.K.Rowling & Neil Murray. Nevertheless, as Marilyn Monroe said in The Prince and the Showgirl: It's important to note the analogy. A woman may be pretty. But that won't mean that every man wants to marry her. Likewise, a man may be rich. But that's not nearly enough to guarantee that all the women around him would like to marry him. It's common for the female employees to have a crush on the boss' nephew. But only when he's young and good-looking, and would be the sort of guy that they wouldn't mind dating anyway. Being connected to the boss, just gives them enough of an incentive to make it worth making obvious, so that even if he uses to take advantage of them, they wouldn't mind having a fling with him, if it gives them the possibility of marrying the boss' nephew. So I'd say that it means that you're attractive to these women anyway. If you'd met them in a different situation, and they didn't know that you were the boss' nephew, they'd probably still have gone for you if you'd chatted them up and asked them out for coffee. That doesn't explain why you don't succeed like this IRL. It might be that you say nothing in the office, and it's your conversation that puts women off. But if you do talk in the office, it can't be that. In that case, it's probably that you are relaxed at work and not expecting that any dating situations might crop up, and so you behave normally. Then it follows that the only reason that you strike out so much outside of work is because you are expecting women to turn you down, and so act extremely nervously and clumsily around them. Humans are emotionally like animals. Animals pick up on humans' fears and then feel afraid themselves. When a human is afraid of a dog, the dog picks up on the fear. Dogs usually respond to fear with the fight instinct. So when a human is afraid of a dog, the dog becomes afraid and bares its teeth, acting like it is going to attack the human. Often, when a man approaches a woman and the man is nervous, the woman picks up on the fear. This causes her to feel afraid, which reminds her of all of the thing that she is afraid of. Many women will back off from dating when they are afraid, due to fears of rape and abuse. I suggest the following: Try to fake being unafraid. Pretend that you're not afraid of women turning you down. Pretend that they like you, and that many will date you. Pretend that they like your usual self. Tell them about the things that interest you. A few women told me that if a woman is still with you after 10 minutes of conversation, they'll expect that if you are interested in dating them, that you'll ask them out, and if you don't, it means you're not attracted to them. So, I suggest that if you've got them talking for 10 minutes, ask them for coffee. If a woman turns you down, pretend to yourself that she's got a boyfriend or is just the one in a thousand that isn't attracted, and the other 999 out of a thousand are. Odds on, if you're being comfortable, then at least 1 out of every 5 women will say yes. In short, it means these women are attracted to you. The money, status and power just gave them the incentive to make it obvious.
  5. That's the sort of joke an ENTP might make.
  6. Interesting for me as an INTP. I get an impression of ENTPs that they understand the way I think, and I understand the way they think, even though we live our lives very differently. ENTJs and ENFJs both find my thinking to be different to theirs, but their communications to me indicate that they still have a good practical understanding of how I think. ISTPs usually have a good understanding of how I think. They simply tend to have different interests. ESxPs, ISxJs and INxJs tend to have no clue about what goes on in my head. They often enjoy our conversations. But they still largely think of me as an alien, or as a free-floating "brain".
  7. It does affect his body. If he doesn't pay up child support for the next 18 years, the CSA will have his body relocated to a prison.
  8. If you want to take it that way, then if a woman says she's on the pill, when she's not, and when the man would not have consented to sex with the woman had he known she was not on the pill, would also qualify as non-consensual sex. Also, then if a woman says she's pregnant, when she's not, and when the man would not have consented to marry the woman had he known she was not pregnant, would also qualify as a non-consensual commitment, and would be an invalid marriage. It could also qualify as intent to commit fraud.
  9. Pop science is to science, what pop music is to music. Do you think Milli Vanilli gives people an appreciation of Beethoven? Rock 'n' Roll, Jazz and Rhythm & Blues, on the other hand, involve a lot of intricate solo pieces, that give people an insight into the intricacy of more complex musical masterpieces. Practically everyone in the UK used to love Johnny Ball's Think of a Number, including those who knew what he was talking about. Einstein is quoted as saying "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." According to Wiki, what he actually said was "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." IME, it's pretty much equivalent. The trick is, how to avoid making things simpler than they really are, which is a big problem in science. Take Newton's Law of Gravitation. The formula is incredibly simple, almost so simple that the equation appears to be trivial. It's the consequences of the formula that become incredibly complex, and need to be simplified. This is what becomes the problem. When one simplifies the equations of science to the point where they are readily understandable by those with very little knowledge of science, the actual theories appear extremely simple, and their practical applications then seem extremely complicated. The actual theories are in the province of science. The practical applications are in the province of engineering. This in turn gives the impression that science is relatively easy, and engineering is extremely difficult, which gives the opposite impression to that which governments and corporations would prefer the public believe. You see, scientists come up with theories, explanations as to how things work and why people should accept certain conclusions. Thus, they are extremely useful in giving plausible explanations to make the policies and actions of governments and corporations as being plausible, reasonable and ethical. Engineers come up with gadgets. Gadgets work. But they don't give explanations that make the policies and actions of governments and corporations as being plausible, reasonable and ethical. So when governments and corporations wish to convince the public of something, they turn to scientists to back them up, not engineers. This in turn requires that people have great trust in scientists as being very smart people. So for the purposes of gaining political support and establishing consumer and voter confidence, it's necessary to make people trust in scientists rather than engineers, and so it's necessary to make science seem like it's incredibly complicated and requires one to trust in scientists. So there's huge political and corporate pressures on pop scientists to give a false representation of science. Thus, pop science usually ends up being made simpler than it should be, to make it much more difficult to figure out the real science from the pop science, so as to give the impression that the real science is a lot more complicated than it is, in order to give the impression that scientists are a lot smarter than they are, so as to make people more likely to trust them when they tell us to trust in governments and corporations.
  10. Assuming that a subject's expectations are externally oriented, i.e. that the subject sets his goals by that which he sees in others around him, and that the subject's achievements are proportional to his expectations, then the functional value of his achievements will be the functional value of his expectations, which in turn are the average of the functional values of the achievements of his nearest neighbours. This could work for 2 scenarios: 1) a simple closed loop, i.e. where the functional values of his neighbours are consistent enough that they could be expanded to form a surface where their functional values would be close enough to form a continuously differentiable surface across the entire area. Any anomalies in the data, such as having one neighbour who was super-rich while the others are all only moderately wealthy, would cause a discontinuity that could not be accounted for by the system, and would represent a residue. His value would be additional to the system, but calculated separately. If he was born mega-rich, then he didn't really achieve more than he started with and would be counted as such, which would offset everyone else's achievements. Vice versa, if he was born with the same wealth as everyone else, but achieved much more, then he would stand as an example of what can be achieved, and would raise the subject's expectations far higher than his other neighbours. 2) treating each of the neighbours as a residue and applying Cauchy's Residue Theorem. There, each neighbour would be treated as an entity in himself. Thus, their individual achievements would be noted in terms of their rise from where they started from. Even if they started out poor and doubled their income, that would imply that the subject could start out with a moderate income and double it as well, even though that would make him much more wealthy than any of his neighbours. But all this sets is a maximum. There's no guarantee that someone will achieve what his expectations suggest. It's just likely that if someone's expectations are set by what he sees others achieve, that he would not aspire to anything more than that, and so if he got the opportunity to accomplish more, might panic that he's over-reaching himself, leading to his subconscious self-sabotaging his opportunity, so that he doesn't commit too heavily and then lose everything. So this assumes that (a) the subject sets his expectations based on what he sees in others, and either (b) decides how hard to try based on that, or is likely to self-sabotage his own efforts if he achieves more than his expectations. I think that this sort of conclusion depends entirely on the personality of the person. It might be relevant to MBTI and Enneagrams. But I doubt that one could use it for everyone. I think that INTJs and ENTJs are probably examples of types that frequently achieve far more than their peers did.
  11. Would that would make it rape in Switzerland if he gave her the impression that he would keep dating her, when he was only interested in a one night stand, and she would not have consented to sex with the man had she known that he was only interested in a one night stand? Can you imagine the number of court cases this could set a precedent for?
  12. I just looked up the average height of an Asian male on Google. It said that the average height of a male from the People's Republic of China is 5ft6 and the average height of a male from the Chinese mainland is 5ft8. Seems to me that for an Asian male, you're of average height. Then a good acid test if how tall your parents, grandparents, siblings and cousins are. If you're not smaller than the shortest of them all by at least 1 inch, then your height is probably genetic. I'm only 5ft6. I also considered it. I'm 2 inches shorter than my younger brother. But I'm also 2 inches taller than my older brother, and about the same height as my late father was. So I figure that my height is mostly genetic. I was doing Yoga and various martial arts for a while, which strengthened my back and caused me to hold my posture mostly straight as it's supposed to be. During these times, I seemed to have gained at least an inch, and possibly two inches. So I'd reckon you ought to consider looking into exercises that strengthen the back and develop good posture. It's really up to you. I was on a dating site for years before this one. People could say they "liked" a profile, by selecting it as a favourite. Most people didn't have many favourites. Really attractive guys had a 100-150. One guy had over 300, by far the most I'd ever seen in a guy's profile. He was a fireman and 5ft6. Guess that it takes more than height to make a guy attractive. That being said, boob jobs can be paid for on the UK's NHS, if the person has significantly low self-esteem. At the end of the day, if you really believe that height is what will make you attractive, it's your choice. But if your reasons for not feeling attractive are not because of your feelings about your shortness, then even if you get the surgery, you'll feel the same, and thus it won't help. So the question really is: how are you around women who are shorter than you? Are you Mr Confident with women who are shorter than you? Because if you are, and you are Mr Nervous with women who are taller than you, then obviously, your height is your problem. If, however, you are lacking in confidence, even with women who are significantly shorter than you, then it might not help. Given that you're an INTJ, I'd just like to point out that studies showed that the single greatest indicator of being in a relationship of the Big Five personality traits, was Extroversion, not Consciensciousness. It's not asking women out that gets the dates. It's just going and talking to lots of women. That's what it's about, because even the most successful players strike out 80% of the time. It's simply a case of going and talking to lots of women. It helps to ask them out. But if you talk to lots of women, some of them will be interested. Some will make it obvious that if you ask them out, that they will say yes. Some will even ask you out. But if a 6ft guy stays at home most of the time, then he's unlikely to get many dates, simply because he doesn't meet many women.
  13. Not if we upload our minds into robots:
  14. You're confused because you're an INTP. INTPs often want a perfect system that will explain everything down to the minutest detail, and will keep seeking better understanding until they have such a system. Js tend to like to make decisions, to be sure that their goals are accomplished. When a situation will probably go their way, as long as they just let it ride out naturally without their interference, they tend to get antsy, say that they can't just sit there waiting for things to happen and try to force the situation. Ps tend to like to keep the results open, even if that leaves open the possibility that things might not go their way, until they are 100% sure of their perceptions of what must be done to achieve the results. NPs and SPs differ markedly in this. NPs like to be non-commital about the results, until their understanding shows them that the results must have been achieved. Once they are sure that their understanding shows that the results should have been achieved, then even if the results are not as expected, they will feel sure that the reasons for the results not turning out as expected are due to other factors that are not their fault or their problem. SPs like to say that they have done what they have been asked to do. If the results are not as expected, then they tend to assume that other things have come up that have caused the results to go askew, and will just re-do the task. You don't have a perfect answer here, as things can be planned in part AND unplanned in part. A J would rather make a decision that he is planned or unplanned, even if that means the answer is imperfect, and would rather resolve the conflict later, when they have to. A P would rather leave things in an open state, such as being "confused", until such a time as they have a perfect perception. ...... added to this post 26 minutes later: ISTJs have a lot in common with INTPs. ISTJs tend to want to work with facts and established method. But things rarely fit perfectly with any system. So in order to make things work, they slowly tweak their established method more and more until it works for the cases that are likely to occur in practical reality and would cause a significant practical problem if they do occur (Te). When INTPs solve a problem, they start out with the established method, and then expand it more and more to cope with more and more cases until it works for every possible case that could logically occur (Ti). The main difference is in their attitude to the solution: the ISTJ simply wants a solution that will solve the current practical problem facing him, and only wants to deal with the practical cases that are likely to occur and likely to cause a practical problem. This tends to mean they are very quick at accomplishing the tasks set to them. As they are happy just solving the practical problem, they are also very comfortable staying in the same job for decades, solving the same common tasks over and over again. This makes them excellent employees for jobs with complex but mostly repetitive tasks, where each task has minute differences that cannot be automated practically at the moment, such as accounting, which keeps changing because business needs keep changing and so do accountancy laws. The INTP wants to come up with a general solution to the type of problem, partially as a puzzle, but also so that any future similar problem will automatically be solved by re-applying the solution that was already arrived at earlier. This tends to mean that the INTP will take a lot longer to solve the original problem than the ISTJ. But once the INTP has got to the solution that he wanted to achieve, he almost doesn't ever have to deal with the same problem again, because his solution is applicable so easily and so generally, that almost anyone could apply the solution. It also means that after a while of being in the same job, it gets boring for him, because he's solved most of the common problems already, and is mostly just applying existing solutions, and so doesn't feel like he's really doing anything that couldn't be done by a monkey. In this way, he kind of works himself out of the job, and keeps wanting to move on every so often to new types of projects. However, it also means that it makes them excellent at developing solutions for currently unsolved problems and problems with very unsatisfactory solutions, that can be done by others very easily, and hence makes them excellent at developing solutions that can be automated, like motherboard designs that can be mass-produced by robots.
  15. Warrior has it: Ethics are related to one's ethos, which represents the philosophy and image of an organisation or society that is how it intends to fulfil its goals. E.G. many corporations are committed to a policy of sustainability as part of their corporate image. It's thus part of their ethics to recycle. Morals are related to one's mood, one's general personality and character, E.G. not taking things without permission. Something can be ethical, moral, both and neither. E.G. Taking away used boxes to the recycling centre without first getting permission from the manager, would be ethical, but immoral. If one asks permission from the manager to take away used boxes to the recycling centre, and is refused, because the person is on company time, and would not be allowed to take them away after work, as then the offices would be closed, would be moral, because one is not taking things without permission, but would be unethical, because the company's policy is to recycle. The difference is really more of a nuance, rather than being about what is right or wrong.