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 thod

  • Rank
    Core Member


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


  • Gender
  1. I can't help but think that that comes with caveats. That by algorithm, you mean some process with a finite series of steps.
  2. I find that, once again, it is the binary thinking that is at fault. Every couple is such that one or other of them is the leader in particular areas of the relationship. That that is a good thing. It is those areas where neither is willing to concede to the other that the arguments centre around. The traditional division would be that the woman is the boss in matters inside the house and the man is the boss in matters outside.
  3. The problem is with the classification system, using a one dimensional axis of smart-stupid. It is possible to be smart but not curious for example. They can be smart but poorly educated. I have noticed a fixation on the attribute of intelligence. What about all the other attributes, if someone is courageous for example, if someone is kind. These sapiosexuals don't like all intelligent people. It is simply one attribute in a mix and often is not the most important. Thus I suggest compiling a list of words that people use to describe what they like in a partner. I am not even convinced that people do know what they like in another and thus are not qualified to make a choice.
  4. MDMA in the punch bowl.
  5. There are no well tested treatments for human life extension. What there are is a lot of experiments with lower animals. That is because these can be tested whereas it would take 50 years to get the results form a human study. There are some human results, such as that with metformin, which where found by accident. It is quite relevant to the Earth Sciences debate above. In that the mechanisms seen in lower animals may carry over to the human one. But as medicine shows, often they do not. due to differences in the system. Certainly doing the experiments does count as science.
  6. There are no such levels. This list is simply a product of someone's value system.
  7. But then the Romans were not interested in selling you things. They were interested in power and those who disagreed with them were killed or enslaved. They gave their land to their retiring soldiers in payment satisfying them and securing the loyalty of the region. Likewise the British were not interested in selling to their empire. The mechanism was commodities in to Britain, finished goods out, taking a margin on the way. The natives were forbidden to manufacture themselves or to sell their commodities to anyone else. A captive market. The rule was never live and let live. It was if you are of no use to me, then better to kill you. If you provide me with nothing, then an empty land is just as good but presents no potential threat.
  8. Yea, he said he will punish the children to the third and fourth generation (Ex:20.5). Well I am taking him at his word on that. So long as I don't have any kids, he will have nobody to punish. So if you get a vasectomy and do some idol worshipping, then you can never die because then he wouldn't be keeping his promise to punish your kids.
  9. Spoke like Jedi master Yoda, did she.
  10. We are the sum of our experiences. Whatever you spend your time doing, that is what makes you. Thus petty criminals are forever looking for weakness in others and are suspicious that others are after doing the same to them. They think that way all the time because it is their world view. Computer programmers don't spend most of their time figuring out how to do something. They spend most of their time figuring out what could go wrong since covering those cases is the bulk of the code. Thus they become good at spotting such cases even in non computer related subjects.
  11. It could be several reasons, all of them relating to emotional intensity. Perhaps she was overwhelmed by all the attention. All these people being nice to her and telling her how nice she is. That could be relief and she is releasing her anxieties that she was not good enough. It could be down to being put on the spot, a sort of stage fright. Humans are hard wired that way. When all heads turn to you, then you ask "huh what am I doing?" Because you must be doing something for them all to look at you. You risk the group attacking you.
  12. All empires move through a cycle. The later part has an entrenched elite and low social mobility. They have succeeded in locking things down with them at the top. They no longer care to build anything, or change anything, their interest is in extraction. China itself has been through several such cycles. They even have a name for it, where they lose the mandate of heaven.
  13. They are not helpful though. I have read numerous self-help books and I get nothing from them. Their authors are cynically working a market of neuroticism, their readership forever hoping to find the big insight that will make them breakthrough to the next level.
  14. The pro communists argue that true communism has never been applied. The free marketeers argue that there has never been truly free markets. It is the no true Scotsman fallacy. The Scotsman hears of the London murderer and says "No Scotsman would ever do such a thing". Then later upon hearing of the even worse Aberdeen murderer says "Well he may be a Scotsman, but not a true Scotsman since no true Scotsman would do such a thing". Thus we see that his definition of a true Scotsman is simply one that does not murder. It is akin to saying "All bachelors are single men", a truism. The problem with communism is that of the control of those seeking private profit, this causes a centralized dictatorship. With capitalism we get a ruling class of rich men, lets call them the lords. who collectively rule through their economic control. I am not sure that it is possible to have distributed, more equal, system since it would be unstable. If measures are applied to maintain it, then those who do so hold the power. Certainly the US is not the Jeffersonion vision of talented small businessmen and entrepreneurs the libertarians like to portray. The vast majority of the people are employees, servants of the masters.
  15. Yet one must also note that many people have studied such logic course, some achieving mastery, that these people rarely occupy high positions or achieve their lives goals. Yet it never seems to occur to them that their approach is getting them nowhere. That although symbolic logic is useful for small well defined problems, it is incalculable for general real world situations. That the inference engines, which can calculate quickly, rapidly run into exponentials and must be forever tweaked with priorities in inference rules.