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 ScottH

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Astrology Sign
  • Brain Dominance


  • Biography
    Computer geek, math and physics lover
  • Location
    Vancouver, WA
  • Occupation
    Software Engineering Consultant
  • Interests
    Computers, math, physics, truth, logic, and antique bottles :-)
  • Personal Text
    Fascinated by everything!
  1. Omg this is so arrogant!! I'm so glad i dont exist within the confines of your mind!

  2. I can think of several such cases. First, as a matter of learned behavior, I consider whether the person making such a statement is seeking empathy (or making some sort of general personal judgment), and try to act accordingly. I tend to be analytical and give emotion a back chair. If it's not the case that I really have failed to meet someone's expectation for personal empathy (i.e., a friend is not seeking support), I generally explain how empathy is a cognitive feat and I have chosen to use my limited brain power for something else--like problem solving or predicting, to assist the person. In your specific case, this sounds like one of two common situations: 1. A person really wants you to care, but judges whether you do by how thoroughly you support them (and in particular, in ways that might be hard for you to do intuitively). I count this case only because I have reasoned that it should be possible given other personality types, but I always have to admit it looks like case #2 to me. 2. A person is trying to emotionally control you by blaming you and then refusing to let you atone in a reasonable way, making themselves both the victim and the knight in shining armor. I'm really emotionally daft tho, especially where unspoken expectations and rules of conduct are concerned, so you probably shouldn't make much of my words.
  3. Yes, of course; they will claim things like "...it is well known that the average high-range IQ test taker has an IQ of 140..." or something unsupported, and then they use a norm with perhaps 100's of samples (the one I linked even fewer). But having enjoyed these home-grown types of tests as a hobby with many people (many professional colleagues who I believe to be smarter than I and likely to out-score me on traditional tests), I know I can out-compete many of them. My point being that an earned score on a known psychometric test is itself not a measure of intelligence, if you wish to make any use of that as a measure of anything more meaningful than test taking. Some top physicists have even described some part of their ability as sheer tenacity, and I think that's important because it may not be as much of a choice as we think; it may really be that certain brains are better suited to the 'long haul' attacks on problems than others, and thus the psychometric test scores may not well predict who would be the best physicist, or much else. It might be a fun experiment to gather IQ test lovers from this forum and have them take a 'real' I.Q. test, and then take a couple of those others and compare notes. We might find interesting and relevant results--particularly to the OPs question about what intelligence is. I have my answers in a .PPT if anybody wants to do this and then [privately, to meet the test author's non-publication request] share.
  4. Ability to solve problems and find patterns. It is something ill understood, I think. Traditional IQ tests, for example, do measure--with a fairly high degree of accuracy--how well someone can solve certain types of problems within given time constraints. That is clearly a certain kind of intelligence. Un-timed tests measure ones ability to solve certain types of problems without a time limit--or perhaps I should say within the time limit that their own mind sets with their personal interests. When I take a professional IQ test I score just inside the top 2% statistically. But when I take un-timed tests I score in a much smaller fraction of the population--whether because I can 'eventually' solve those problems, or because I have the tenacity and love of challenge to keep me going... this is unknown. But regardless the cause, this seems to say I can solve problem some others can't. Certainly education plays a role; 'mental tools' are powerful. I doubt we'll ever have a useful ruler with which to measure something as vague and varying as intelligence. ---------- Post added 08-27-2015 at 08:28 PM ---------- If you're interested, try this, for example: http://news.generiq.net/TL37/tl37.html The author suggests you take two weeks.
  5. I have only read the OP. I think Trump appeals to that party because over the last several election cycles their rhetoric has become distinctly more petty, childish and degrading. We don't see headlines (from their propaganda outlets) about how some member "debated," "confronted," or "disagreed with" someone from the other party, but rather how they "slammed," or "humiliated" them. There are no words expressed that attack a view or policy, but instead disparage the other person. Trump is riding this trend easily as an ego-maniacal bombast with few real ideas and lots of 'sharp' words. This is a scary trend to me, as it shows yet another orthogonal direction in which the voters are being drawn away from their own interests; it used to be they were duped by cleverly wrapped lies, and now it's just powerfully stupid rhetoric that excites them. I don't think the voters are yet dumbed down enough to elect him (i.e., Hillary would beat him), but that he is even considered a serious contender speaks volumes about how quickly we are losing control.
  6. This is a very interesting topic. I think in pictures. Many are concrete, some are abstract. I can also 'feel' the pictures, so it would not be possible to draw them. For example, if I imagine a medium such as water, and a wave propagating through it, I can sense varying density and/or pressure. It's not that I 'see' that, but it's just as tangible as if I did. I was astounded one day to discover that my wife imagines everything in words. I asked: "So, when I say sphere, you don't see a sphere in your mine?" She said "No. I see the letters S P H E R E." Wow. How different we are!
  7. Yep. It's kiddy land here right now... but I was 54 when I joined, so I kinda' made a conscious decision to immerse myself in the silliness.

    You're a good man, Scott. I like and respect you.

  8. Hey,

    I return here from time to time to socialize, but it seems I have to click through ever more pages of "Game of Thrones...," "Dedicate a song to...," and "Does this make you gay?" posts before I find anything worth reading. <sigh> Age kinda hurts :-)

    Anyway, I thought of you today. Since I found that fake IQ test I posted here, I so thoroughly enjoyed the puzzles in it that I've done a couple others. One of them--which I should say did not claim to be 'culture-fair' had the following question:

    * What one word connects the following:

    2.71, √-1, 3.14, -1, 0

    I recognized it right away, then laughed as I could only think of two people I know who might also recognize this, one of which is you.

    This question made me drop that test, not because it's uninteresting, but because it is a [subject-specific] history question and has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. LOL

  9. You are a good man, Scott.

  10. I read your post, and nothing beyond. I would answer: probably not, but I have a bit more to say. In our society, if you cry 'rape,' it is likely you will get some traction from the legal system, but it is important to distinguish between his intentions, yours, and finally the [legally paramount but factually irrelevant] choice the legal system will make. It sounds like you did a good job trying to be open and honest in your post, but I think you admit that you could not accurately guess how the situation looked to him. It would, for example, not surprise me to hear him say that "...once she had a few drinks, she seemed over the issues she's suffered, and her feigned hesitance was delivered as a joke, which I thought was her way to cheering being over it..." So, in this sense, I think think it is more something you need to mend with him, as you can't really know how he viewed the events without his words. Unfortunately, when you implied he broke the law you may have put up a wall of self defense that will be hard to over come--men tend to get scared of or angry at a woman who calls them a rapist, if they do not believe they have raped anybody. I don't know what the laws are like in your location, and I don't mean to be indelicate about how you are feeling, but my personal view is that: * Rape is an intentional act perpetrated upon an unwilling person (you can't rape by accident or ignorance) * Willful intoxication does not displace your responsibility for your actions nor complicity (get drunk and murder someone, go to prison; get drunk and have sex with someone, accept the consequence) "He should know better" is misplaced responsibility; you should also have known better (than to do these acts...although your role is a bit foggy to me). In any event, only you can decide if you 'think you' have been violated. Given the clarity of your post above I feel confident that if you decide you have--and choose to do something about it--he will not be one of those men railroaded by an angry lover. I wish you the best--both in this issue, and in overcoming the lasting trauma of your abuse as a child. You might also want to consider that your PTSD is not just your issue, but also something for your partner(s) to deal with as well.
  11. I like that you used the description "...connects with childhood..." None of us know what really happened here, but it seems like the recognition of a childhood classmate brought him back to an earlier time, and maybe he saw in some way how different he was. I don't have any judgment or analysis, but I did find this very interesting to see and think about. Thank you for sharing.
  12. Re: the Golly. I do like and appreciate you. I think your politics and a bit of your reality are messed up, but if I could know myself as others do, I'm sure I would say the same thing of me. I don't usually enjoy chatting with people who agree with me too much, because, well, I can do that with myself in my den :-)

  13. I know :(

    I, as you know, am a bit more socially liberal than about 1/2 of America. I think drug testing those who receive assistance is just a Republican ruse (else, why not drug test ALL receivers of welfare, including those who are subsidized as corporations, or through mortgage interest or childcare deductions).

    But, I happen to know two people who could be the poster child for the Right's "hate a poor bum" propaganda: neither work, both have let you and I support them for decades, and BOTH claim depression as their primary 'blame.' Both are obese, both rarely leave their house, both... I could go on.

    I haven't had a lot of contact with depression, save for these two, and my own (which is always manageable, particularly through the advice I gave), so I tend to have a negative view of anybody claiming more than "life can be hard sometimes" with depression to blame.

    Or, statistically:

    1) Person in post has some type of depression I can't understand; I have no reason to believe this exists, but my puny words likely will have no impact.

    2) Person in post has the type of depression my two bum associates have, in which case my words (if followed) may well help (and if they don't, I don't care).

    4) Person in post is like me, in which case my words, if followed, will help.


  14. I'm sorry for the long delay; between a highly stressful job and resulting switch to a much better one, I've been rather absent.

    Faith is not acquired by revelation or conviction; it is intellectual surrender to what has been 'taught' someone by another source. Sure, 1,000 years ago people created superstitions as a few do now and ended up believing things on their own. But where religion is concerned, nobody has had a 'revelation' that is not a simple re-affirmation of what they were taught by someone else.

    To put it another way, imagine a ship full of children wrecked on some island whereby all adults die and there is no literature, I have no doubt waves of irrational faiths would spread through the population of the island, like:

    * Don't eat the blue berries, they make you sick (Sue got sick eating bad shellfish and blue berries)

    * Don't go out at night; there are monsters (Joe did that and never came back).

    * If you burn your hut down when you're sick, you'll get well (John had the flu and just days after burning his hut down he was feeling much better)

    This is superstition.

    But it takes countless years for a population to understand this well enough and then develop the communication means to craft home-grown superstitions into something persistent--something that can be used against the believers. This is what modern religion is, and 'faith' is just the term its victims use to describe their choice (or inability) to play along.