# Any INTP composers?



## tokatila (May 12, 2015)

Say aye, if this applies:


----------



## Tatu (May 12, 2015)

I can recognize my self from that.


----------



## reddognoyz (May 12, 2015)

paycheck/deadline cures that


----------



## mc_deli (May 12, 2015)

Funny how completing gear purchases is so much easier than finalizing and mastering works


----------



## SciFlyBoy (May 12, 2015)

Meyers Briggs. I am exactly INTP. Anyone have a solution out there?


----------



## tokatila (May 12, 2015)

SciFlyBoy @ Tue May 12 said:


> Meyers Briggs. I am exactly INTP. Anyone have a solution out there?



No, because for most INTP-type persons know that as they practice their skills will improve, thus the current work is always second-best to the next work or what could be done in the future.

This causes the constant revisions and quitting usually at the point where the "routine" part starts. :mrgreen:

Have you tried composing drunk?


----------



## Daryl (May 12, 2015)

Stuart is right. Deadlines are the answer.

D


----------



## SciFlyBoy (May 12, 2015)

Yeah, deadlines. Knowing when to put the pen down and to stop tinkering and just let the project be. Best to let someone talk me into another project to get me off the old.


----------



## tokatila (Jul 26, 2015)

I'm happy to inform that I'm almost ready with my 3rd piece in a year span. My speed is seemingly improving. :D I'm only posting this to motivate me to finish it this time.

And it only took me 3 days of binge drinking to find the first two notes of the melody. Two notes / three days. I'm on my way to note/day.


----------



## Lassi Tani (Jul 26, 2015)

Good to hear tokatila that your speed is improving. I might finish around 5-6 pieces this year. It's just too tempting to start a new project. :D Actually I tried once going back to a piece I started a few years ago, and to my surprise I could finish it, and I even got some fresh new ideas to it!


----------



## neblix (Jul 26, 2015)

I hate to break it to you guys, but all composers are like this.


----------



## rJames (Jul 26, 2015)

What a difference a letter makes. INTJ here. I guess I am able (or compelled) to make the [J]udgement that this section is as good as I will ever be able to make it...and I move on.
Ron


----------



## chillbot (Jul 26, 2015)

Interesting. ISTP here and I couldn't be more opposite. It would drive me crazy to have anything 1/2 finished. I'm a huge fan/believer in myers-briggs but really, one letter?


----------



## R. Soul (Jul 26, 2015)

If you're hobby composer there's no reason why you can't just have fun making 1/2 finished projects. 
I mean, some guys sits and jam 8 hours straight on their guitar. They don't feel that their 'work' is incomplete.

And some people like to create loops or synth patches, without ever finishing a tune. Some of them even make a decent living doing it.

If you don't have clients - do whatever you want to do. As long as you are enjoying it, what's the problem?

If you do have clients - well, you better figure out a way to complete your project ASAP, otherwise you'll lose them :D


----------



## Allegro (Jul 26, 2015)

I used to be a hardcore INTP but then they srarted paying me. For me, the cure was: Some cash up my throat before and after projects.


----------



## tokatila (Jul 26, 2015)

chillbot said:


> Interesting. ISTP here and I couldn't be more opposite. It would drive me crazy to have anything 1/2 finished. I'm a huge fan/believer in myers-briggs but really, one letter?



:D


----------



## wpc982 (Jul 29, 2015)

Extreme INTP here. I do finish some things, some times, but the beginnings are many more, and the bright ideas for another beginning even more. I'm content with who I am, even if not entirely content with what the world makes of my efforts.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jan 8, 2019)

Ha, sorry to revive a dead thread but I've been Googling INTP's since I -re-took the test recently and came across this thread. It seems that over the years I've slowly gone from being an INFJ in my late teens to INTP in my late twenties.

Yeah, my folder containing unfinished compositions is so large that I've named it The Vault, so...seems I'm in good company here.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 8, 2019)

AlexRuger said:


> Ha, sorry to revive a dead thread but I've been Googling INTP's since I -re-took the test recently and came across this thread. It seems that over the years I've slowly gone from being an INFJ in my late teens to INTP in my late twenties.


I wouldn't think too much into it.
You have a 50% chance of receiving a different result if you retake the test after a 5-week gap.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

These personality classifications are bullshit.


----------



## tokatila (Jan 9, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> These personality classifications are bullshit.



That's exactly what an INTJ would say.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

tokatila said:


> That's exactly what an INTJ would say.



Anti-intellectualism is a terrible drift in modern society and the popularity of these horoscope-like classifications is ample proof. Wise up people, it's in our duty.


----------



## rottoy (Jan 9, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Anti-intellectualism is a terrible drift in modern society and the popularity of these horoscope-like classifications is ample proof. Wise up people, it's in our duty.


Yes, those pesky millenials with their mobile games and innocuous personality tests need to get off our lawns and back into school! Thin out the sheeple and bring back Theodore Roosevelt!


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

rottoy said:


> Yes, those pesky millenials with their mobile games and innocuous personality tests need to get off our lawns and back into school! Thin out the sheeple and bring back Theodore Roosevelt!



Well that was somewhat anti-intellectual as well, I must say.


----------



## rottoy (Jan 9, 2019)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Well that was somewhat anti-intellectual as well, I must say.


I aim to please.


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Jan 9, 2019)




----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 9, 2019)

Myers-Briggs is astrology for people with degrees. It's meaningless nonsense, debunked many times over. You are not defined by four letters any more than you are by a 'which Disney character are you' buzzfeed quiz. As with horoscopes though, some people like to offload personal responsibility on to a feeling of _'well I'm an (insert nonsense here) so I'm born this way, really - and that won't change'.
_


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> Myers-Briggs is astrology for people with degrees. It's meaningless nonsense, debunked many times over. You are not defined by four letters any more than you are by a 'which Disney character are you' buzzfeed quiz. As with horoscopes though, some people like to offload personal responsibility on to a feeling of _'well I'm an (insert nonsense here) so I'm born this way, really - and that won't change'._



Exactly. Much like with the horoscope, people love to read themselves into meaningless platitudes and factoids that can be applied to anyone and anything, and it's a favored pastime of unassuming folk. Which is fun and entertaining and I get all that, but there's a growing tendency to taking memes, infotainment, coffee cup reading, pop psychology, pseudo-sience and misinformation at face value, and that's where it gets silly. The same types also love to excuse their shortcomings with baseless references to supposed "human nature" or ridiculous nonsense that allegedly, alleged "scientists" have "proven".


----------



## rottoy (Jan 9, 2019)

I agree that it becomes an issue when used as a scapegoat for not dealing with any personal shortcomings. Short of that, I fail to see any merit to shit on self-assessment forms like the Myers-Briggs thing.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

rottoy said:


> I agree that it becomes an issue when used as a scapegoat for not dealing with any personal shortcomings. Short of that, I fail to see any merit to shit on self-assessment forms like the Myers-Briggs thing.



How about it being over-simplified and in no way reflecting how human psychology, let alone genetics, really work?

All these questions and presumed characteristics in these tests are treated as mutually exclusive. They assume that if you have a tendency A, you cannot possibly have a tendency B later that day, tomorrow or possibly simultaneously. Which is however what happens with humans all the time! They assume that people's conscience, decision making and personal characteristics are linear on/off switches, while in reality, any personality has several modes and layers of "truth" always running in tandem.

Whenever I did one of these, I noticed how it just didn't pan out and ended up contradicting itself. However, people like conforming to patterns, groupings and stereotypes, and are arguably conditioned to do so to a significant degree. Which is why they tend to respond to such tests and answer those questions "accordingly", experiencing an underlying affirmation of doing it "right". The result is the impression that the test works.


----------



## erikradbo (Jan 9, 2019)

Myer-Briggs has got a lot of criticism due to how hard it is to prove it's worth scientifically. To call it rubbish because it is anti-intellectual raises two questions:

1. Is everything that doesn't fit into the container "intellectualism" rubbish and should be thrown out?
2. Is everything that can't be proven scientifically anti-intellectual?

If the answer is yes to both 1&2, then it's rubbish. Let's throw it in the bin. Let's add the perception that all things can be rationally explained and that the scientific method is the only valuable tool to distinguish between right or wrong, since there is no way of scientifically prove that. Ah, moral and ethics is also going in the bin, why would being good to someone be better than being bad? Anti-intellectual bullshit, all of it! Feelings should also be ignored and put in the bin, they can't be proven to be valid. Well, let's throw out thoughts as well.

Myer-briggs is a tool that springs from the theories of Carl Jung as I'm sure many of you know. Yes, psychological theories, they are not facts, but theories. A simplification of these theories was made by two women and happens to provide people with tools to understand themselves and others. It doesn't say that one way is better than another, it just says "if you are like X maybe you will react like Y, and that would be weird to person Z". Similar to "if you are a person that gets hungry often, it might be good to eat often, but others might be different". A totally non-scientific statement, but very practical.

So if there are tools that help people understand themselves and others, why would we have issues with it? Take ADHD, it's a very non-scientific disease, we have simply observed humans and noticed that "there is a group of people that acts and feels in this certain way, and it seems to be an obstacle for them, let's see if we can help them". Such anti-intellectual bullshit, who are we to group these people into square boxes and put labels on them!

Structured science came as a very valuable tool a couple of 100 years ago, and we should treasure it for all it has given us. But the most important thing is not what science can prove, but what makes us happy and what works. If Myer-briggs doesn't work for you, don't use it. Same goes for taking Concerta pills if you have ADHD. Or deciding that hugging your child all the time is a good or a bad thing. Let's not be right. Let's be happy.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 9, 2019)

erikradbo said:


> To call it rubbish because it is anti-intellectual raises two questions:


I'm calling it rubbish because its whole premise (people can be categorised into neat personality types) is demonstrably wrong. Not because it's not 'intellectual' or scientific. Because it is a nonsense science with no basis in reality other than perhaps confirmation bias. And Jung had barely anything to do with it in the first place.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

Well that's a bit of stretch @erikradbo. Not to say a red herring. It almost sounded like an esoteric plea or argument for Myer-Briggs, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't claim for itself. I hardly believe that it's based on the fact that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Which is something I'd happily subscribe to. But Myer-Briggs is most certainly meant as a "scientific", grounded tool.

The argument isn't that Myer-Briggs can't be scientifically proven so it must be nonsense. The argument is that it's a superficial, simplistic and demonstrably misleading tool and that's why it shouldn't be taken seriously beyond "trivia" level.

Edit: @Richard Wilkinson was faster.


----------



## erikradbo (Jan 9, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> I'm calling it rubbish because its whole premise (people can be categorised into neat personality types) is demonstrably wrong. Not because it's not 'intellectual' or scientific. Because it is a nonsense science with no basis in reality other than perhaps confirmation bias. And Jung had barely anything to do with it in the first place.





Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Well that's a bit of stretch @erikradbo. Not to say a red herring. It almost sounded like an esoteric plea or argument for Myer-Briggs, which I'm pretty sure it doesn't claim for itself. I hardly believe that it's based on the fact that there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Which is something I'd happily subscribe to. But Myer-Briggs is most certainly meant as a "scientific", grounded tool.
> 
> The argument isn't that Myer-Briggs can't be scientifically proven so it must be nonsense. The argument is that it's a superficial, simplistic and demonstrably misleading tool and that's why it shouldn't be taken seriously beyond "trivia" level.
> 
> Edit: @Richard Wilkinson was faster.



Fair point, I think both of you are saying that you dislike it not because it's not scientific, but because it's plain wrong. Do you mean that it's scientifically proven wrong, or do you mean that a common public opinion is that it's superficial and that you cannot group people like that?


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 9, 2019)

What's the risk/reward ratio of using it? What's the worst that could happen to someone from doing the test, what's the best, how likely are both?


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jan 9, 2019)

erikradbo said:


> Fair point, I think both of you are saying that you dislike it not because it's not scientific, but because it's plain wrong. Do you mean that it's scientifically proven wrong, or do you mean that a common public opinion is that it's superficial and that you cannot group people like that?



Common public opinion is often a very bad thing to rely on - especially given the last few years of world politics...

I mean it's been shown to be based on little actual study or evidence, with demonstrations that people taking the test at different times will get different results - which contradicts the whole idea of the test.

My annoyance is more with companies who spend money using it to decide how to direct and manage their employees. It has a sort of pseudo-scientific reputation still, which means not enough people are actually taking the time to stop and go _'hang on a sec, this might be bollocks. Let's check before we spend a load of money and make business decisions based on it...'_


----------



## erikradbo (Jan 9, 2019)

Richard Wilkinson said:


> Common public opinion is often a very bad thing to rely on - especially given the last few years of world politics...



Word.



Richard Wilkinson said:


> I mean it's been shown to be based on little actual study or evidence, with demonstrations that people taking the test at different times will get different results - which contradicts the whole idea of the test.




Got it. I don't think we disagree. I agree that it is by default based on very little evidence, as is almost every theory in management and psychology (cognitive behavioral therapy perhaps being the exception). I also get annoyed when people claim things to be scientifically sound when they are not. Or when they are used in a weird context, such as you are describing.

And answering those questions is not a test. You can decide for yourself what 4 letters you are. If you find it hard, there is an indicator to help you wrap your head around it. You might get different results each time, and hopefully each time it helps you understanding a little more about how you prefer things, if you do find you have any preferences at all.



Richard Wilkinson said:


> My annoyance is more with companies who spend money using it to decide how to direct and manage their employees. It has a sort of pseudo-scientific reputation still, which means not enough people are actually taking the time to stop and go _'hang on a sec, this might be bollocks. Let's check before we spend a load of money and make business decisions based on it...'_



I did first come across it at uni, and then as a consultant at McKinsey&Co. There everyone - voluntarily - can do the test. Every time a new team is put together you get the opportunity to tell the rest in your team your MBTI profile. This gives everyone a socially accepted way to explain to everyone else some personal preferences, and sparks a discussion early on around certain issues that can arise in the team due to our differences. I would happily have used another tool for this, but I am pretty sure that having a tool at all increased the understanding in the team. I have a hard time seeing management consultants on the first day of a new project stand up and say:

"Hello, I'm Mike, and I'd like to tell you that I need quite a lot of time by myself to function. I also have a tendency of making big decisions based on my feelings, and I hate getting stuck in the details too much. Oh, and by the way, I'm a planner, so please help me out with setting the schedule as early as possible".

Since those companies know the importance of getting teams to work by meeting the needs of the individuals, they use a tool. Because hes fine with saying: "Hi I'm Mike, and I'm INFJ".


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 9, 2019)

erikradbo said:


> I would happily have used another tool for this, but I am pretty sure that having a tool at all increased the understanding in the team.



That sounds pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig (Jan 9, 2019)

erikradbo said:


> I would happily have used another tool for this, but I am pretty sure that having a tool at all increased the understanding in the team.



Even if that other tool was, say, astrology?


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 9, 2019)

Rasmus Hartvig said:


> Even if that other tool was, say, astrology?



Everyone picking a kind of "spirit animal" or Emoji that represents them would probably be a lot more effective, because it involves an element of choice and expression, wheras astrology is essentially randomly picking and assigning attributes. The thing is, even though I think astrology is bogus, in an A/B controlled study I'd not be surprised if it actually works as a positive influence in a company setting, because it gets _some _kind of conversation going about people in a team being individuals with different character traits and needs. If the control group doesn't have _any _impulse to assess and address individual needs, I wouldn't be surprised if they are worse off in productivity and happyness.


----------



## erikradbo (Jan 9, 2019)

Rasmus Hartvig said:


> Even if that other tool was, say, astrology?





MartinH. said:


> Everyone picking a kind of "spirit animal" or Emoji that represents them would probably be a lot more effective, because it involves an element of choice and expression, wheras astrology is essentially randomly picking and assigning attributes. The thing is, even though I think astrology is bogus, in an A/B controlled study I'd not be surprised if it actually works as a positive influence in a company setting, because it gets _some _kind of conversation going about people in a team being individuals with different character traits and needs. If the control group doesn't have _any _impulse to assess and address individual needs, I wouldn't be surprised if they are worse off in productivity and happyness.



I was gonna say something similar. I don't know that much about astrology, but except that it obviously isn't coherent with science, I also know that attributes are put upon you related to the date of your birth. That's hardly a good tool for communicating who you are.

So yea why not spirit animal, it'll be similar to MBTI. Take 16 spirit animals, give them carefully selected attributes in order to cover most types of human preferences and then pick one. Might be a good idea to have some questions to guide those who have a hard time choosing. And - most importantly - be prepared to be ridiculed by others, because it's really hard to collect evidence to convince critiques that objectively your spirit animal actually _is_ a unicorn.


----------



## Rasmus Hartvig (Jan 9, 2019)

I think the point about these tools being catalysts for having those conversations is a good one, and probably the best argument for using them in teams. However, since MBTI to most people has much more of an air of "scientific basis" around them than astrology, many will tend to view their results as truth when in reality most people are hovering around the midpoint of all four axes (a fact that the creator of the test knew and tried somewhat to correct for).

FWIW the OP actually described me pretty well (until I went professional and had to finish all my projects). After reading it I went and took the test, and it DID spit out INTP. That said, on many questions I thought "The answer to this is super context dependent" and had to choose one side over another.
I'm very logical and analytical, but also emotional. Introverted in some situations and loves being the center of attention in other. And I would guess it's like that for most of us, but the test forces us to commit to one of two options for each dichotomy, thus not really capturing the complexity of human personality.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 9, 2019)

Rasmus Hartvig said:


> I'm very logical and analytical, but also emotional. Introverted in some situations and loves being the center of attention in other. And I would guess it's like that for most of us, but the test forces us to commit to one of two options for each dichotomy, thus not really capturing the complexity of human personality.



I don't think that's accurate if you dig a little deeper. I took the test, also got INTP as a result, and then bought a book about INTP types specifically, from an author that wasn't affiliated with the test website and had good reviews on amazon. Reading that book I thought "holy shit, it's like there is a user manual for how to get along with me.". It absolutely acknowledges that elements from all opposing poles of the axis are present in everyone and goes into great detail on nuances. I've found most things in the book to be eerily accurate for me, and it was way too specific to apply to everyone equally. One thing that stuck was describing the INTP types as "fiercly independant", which I've found helpful in understanding why I react a certain way emotionally in certain situations.

I'm not saying there is a type/test/book for everyone, but if you stumble over something that helps you get a better understanding of how you tick, then why not use it? I was quite happy to have found this and thought it could have positively influenced a decision or two in my earlier life, if I had read the book sooner. I'm having a hard time coming up with scenarios where this stuff has any huge downsides. It's not like they're gonna write a book that says "You're an INT-lazy-sloth, there is no point in even trying to get off the couch and work out, you're born a sloth and sleeping and eating is all you need to do". Instead it would point out that "Feeling drawn to the warmth and comfort of your couch is likely something you are very familiar with, but as an INT-lazy-sloth you need to devote extra attention to getting enough excercise and sunlight, because this is an area where you can't trust your sloth instincts."


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 9, 2019)

MartinH. said:


> I don't think that's accurate if you dig a little deeper. I took the test, also got INTP as a result, and then bought a book about INTP types specifically, from an author that wasn't affiliated with the test website and had good reviews on amazon. Reading that book I thought "holy shit, it's like there is a user manual for how to get along with me.". It absolutely acknowledges that elements from all opposing poles of the axis are present in everyone and goes into great detail on nuances. I've found most things in the book to be eerily accurate for me, and it was way too specific to apply to everyone equally. One thing that stuck was describing the INTP types as "fiercly independant", which I've found helpful in understanding why I react a certain way emotionally in certain situations.
> 
> I'm not saying there is a type/test/book for everyone, but if you stumble over something that helps you get a better understanding of how you tick, then why not use it? I was quite happy to have found this and thought it could have positively influenced a decision or two in my earlier life, if I had read the book sooner. I'm having a hard time coming up with scenarios where this stuff has any huge downsides. It's not like they're gonna write a book that says "You're an INT-lazy-sloth, there is no point in even trying to get off the couch and work out, you're born a sloth and sleeping and eating is all you need to do". Instead it would point out that "Feeling drawn to the warmth and comfort of your couch is likely something you are very familiar with, but as an INT-lazy-sloth you need to devote extra attention to getting enough excercise and sunlight, because this is an area where you can't trust your sloth instincts."


The downside comes when corporations start making placement and promotion decisions based on these tests (which, according to lore, did happen back in the day). If you know how to take these tests, it's also relatively easy to get whatever result you want, so one would have to factor in wish projection/fulfillment along with everything else. Still, as a parlor game or as a route into self help, these tests seem mostly benign. 

There is serious research going on with Jung's categories, but as I understand it the Meyer-Briggs framework is not much used because it confuses functions (thinking, feeling, sensing, intuiting), attributes (introverted, extroverted), and spines (rational, irrational) and makes them seem like independent variables. (I don't really know the stuff myself, but I have a friend who is into it and this is what I have gleaned from talks with him.)

I mean, you might still think it's bullshit, but it's not what MB might make you think it is.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 9, 2019)

For what it's worth, I did some variants of the test myself earlier. I did notice though how I was constantly answering questions in what would have to be considered a contradictory manner, in the sense of: you agreed strongly to A - no way you should disagree that much with B. But that's how a real person is.

Given the simple and predictable nature of the questions, I scored INTJ, no surprise here.

Several questions are pretty misplaced and ultimately useless. Stuff like "You are almost never late for your appointments" or "you find it hard to introduce yourself to others or a group of people" etc. Stuff like that is a matter of conditioning, habit and maturity far more than it is a matter of "personality type". You're not hardwired to be always late (circling back to the use of stuff like this as excuses ...). You can be an inert, forgetful and chaotic guy but still learn to be on time because you need to and you view it as important. You can be an introvert but still learn to be comfortable in social situations, because at some point you grow up and actually aren't an 7 year old kid any more and you realize there's not much to it.

One can have acquired traits that don't have to be constantly enforced or can only be maintained or "faked" for a limited amount of time. Those can be deliberate decisions and conscious habits that you fully intergrate into your personality, even if it's not "typical" for you. If you learned to be a diligent, disciplined and high-performance person, there's no force of natural inclination that ultimately stops you from being that and instead inevitably makes you be more of a slouch, just because you're a "lazy" guy by default and in that general emotional state.

Then there's stuff where both answers are true simultaneously. For example "You tend to sympathize with other people". I'm 100% yes and 100% no. It depends. I can often even simply choose while I'm fully consciously aware that I could be both. It's always genuine.

There's the stuff that plays upon the ever-popular, insufferable idea of a mind/heart dichotomy, which drives me up a wall. "When making a decision, you rely more on your feelings than on analysis of the situation", "You trust reason rather than feelings", etc. Feelings are a very important factor in my analysis of facts! There are several questions in the test that deal with this mistaken duality - that you're either a feeling or a thinking type of person, and that feelings by default must always tell a very different tale from the one that logic does.

I would argue that sentiments along the lines of "that's just how I am" are more a sign of a lack of maturity than anything else. Which is why I would argue that the results of the test will swing depending on age and experience (both across age groups as well as for a single person who'd do the test at different stages of their life). Some of the questions also show that the test has an inherent tendency to qualitative judgement, if you really think about it. And that's kind of a backfiring effect.

What I don't like about stuff like this is that it supports these quasi-esoteric and quasi-religious ideas about predestination and heteronomy, which bizzarely are gaining a lot of traction in our supposed advanced, enlightened and objectifying society - sometimes especially among STEM hardliners and people who would very confidently identify as objective, fact-oriented, sober, etc. The nihilism of scientism ...

So yeah. While the Briggs-Myers typology isn't "harmful" or anything (as long as it's not taken too seriously), it doesn't really say anything profound. But it's fun to do.

Not quite sold on the idea of these tests being a good or advisable conversational basis at all, especially not in professional environments, because I'd expect it to potentially encourage labeling, pigeonholing and boxing in of people.


----------



## Mornats (Jan 9, 2019)

tokatila said:


> Say aye, if this applies:



Going back to the original post, I'm an INTP when I've done the Myers Briggs tests (I've done several for work over the years now) but the quoted picture doesn't apply to me!

I've got a load of completed projects, a handful of started ideas and only one piece (sometimes a max of two) on the go at once. For the last few years I've taken part in a monthly composition challenge on another site which has helped give me focus and got me used to finishing a project, or at least drawing a line under it. Even though my current piece isn't part of that challenge, and hence no deadline, I'm still determined to get it finished as I can clearly see my end goal vision for it and I want to hit that before moving on to my next idea. 

So I don't match the INTP in the picture but I come up as, and am perceived as by friends and peers as an a classic INTP.


----------

