About myself and INTP's in particular

[EC]

Where the extraversion of the iNtuition function becomes obvious is during discussions, especially heated ones. In contrast to INTJs, an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out. On occasion, INTPs may seem brash and tactless, but for themselves it is part of their way of getting closer to the truth. This is another aspect of the Ne grappling with the external world (in this case discussion with another) to understand it. The Ne provides the raw material for the Ti core to analyse. The INTJ, on the other hand, with Ni dominant and Te as secondary, tends to avoid letting uncertain speculative ideas out in the open: he presents a more considered structured viewpoint to the world while holding his private thoughts free for intuitive reasoning.

From here ~~~> http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html (which is a good read in itself)

 

But the point of posting this is because I've (almost unconsciously) used this style of debate in the past here not always making a lot of friends in the process at times. It's mostly when I'm in sort of a "devil's advocate" type of mood. The thing is it's never personal although it may be misconstrued that way at times. And the greater point is that at many times I don't even *always* fully hold the position that I'm arguing but that my intuition sees for various reasons that it is quite possibly true but not *necessarily* true and what I am seeking is the objective truth in all instances and this just happens to be how I search for that *in a social setting* 

 

So anyways, to anyone that is ever offended I'm saying that I'm sorry and that is *never* the intent. And especially in the past with regards to sexual orientation it may have come across that way when even myself was not persuaded either way but was *searching* for the truth in the matter.

 

As of today I would state my views on that subject like the following: I think that sexual orientation and matters of attraction are a result of a very complex interaction of early life experiences and premises that were accepted *before* the mind was fully developed, naturally (or maybe nurtured by early experiences) via personality types like the one above, and quite possibly naturally occurring differences in biology between people. As such, I still believe someone could theoretically *choose* any orientation they wanted however, given the complex nature of all these interactions and how early premises were accepted implicitly such a choice would be nearly impossible and more importantly *irrational* to make. As such, I no longer argue that any such choice, lack of choice, or even attempt to trace back the myriad of premises and other interacting criteria belongs in the realm of morality, *and* that *all* people have the capability to be fully moral men regardless of orientation. 

Edited March 8, 2014 by EC