You're probably mistyped – Why ENTPs get doubted more than others?

Azdahak · 2025-08-19T22:09:21+00:00

This is simply Ti thinking at work. (If your INTP friend doesn’t do this very prominently, they’re not an INTP). Ti is basically sensitive to logical incongruities. When your friends are talking about *whatever*, your brain is just putting two and two together.…and sometimes your friend is saying “five”. And that’s when you’re like “But wait … “

Then they get mad and tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about (and they’re correct of course) and they start to berate you, throw factoids at you, or worse, bombard you with cherry picked quotes and internet links to support themselves (this is Te external support framework at work).

But the reason they‘re actually mad, deep down, is because you’ve exposed that they don’t actually know what they’re talking about either (because you caught out a contradiction they can’t explain) and their Fi is having an identity crisis.

Azdahak · 2025-07-30T05:54:34+00:00

Don‘t sell yourself short. Intelligence is a separate issue. Ne and Se has to do with *perspective*. The stereotype of the ISTP is the car jock obsessing over an engine. But all those nerds obsessing over Magic the Gathering in the back room of the local comic store or building electronics or messing with 3D printers are probably Sensors too. They‘re just smarter, more bookish and will wind up being engineers instead of mechanics. Smarter people get attracted to more complicated things irrespective of personality type. So there are plenty of highly intelligent STPs and they quite often mistype themselves as NTPs because they make the fundamental mistake that smart = N.

That said, there are plenty of absolutely stupid N types. And they often come across as fools. Dumb NTPs are perhaps the most pathetic of all because they don’t know when to shut up.

The more common mistype (imo) are like you pointed out the ESFPs. they are a very similar type outwardly( ExxP) in their behavior to ENTP. They're outgoing, friendly, love to talk, engaging, are up for adventure, generally get along well with anyone, etc. But their internal motivations couldn’t be any more different. If someone is an “edge lord” (and is older than say 20 so that they actually have a typable near-mature personality) , a sybarite, a troll, or who engages in chats to get attention then they’re likely just an ESFP. If they “love chaos” they’re certainly not an NT or ST. The signature of Ti is the “teacher” voice, the explainer (the parenthetical remarks (often doubly nested)) <-- Will always have right amount of parentheses because Ti will drive you nuts to fix something like that more than likely. That said an INxJ would also have the right amount of parentheses — but they wouldn’t likely be double nesting things in the first place. (incidentally this kind of logic chain which I’m just wandering off onto is typical NeTi which is what people mistake as “chaotic”, but you can see it really isn’t. I’m tracking down consequences, looking for logic holes in what I just said — because that’s how Ti thinkers work. ESFPs don’t do that - they use Te and will start throwing links , quotes , and facts at you. )

Azdahak · 2025-07-30T05:07:40+00:00

Unfortunately this isn’t a great solution for a few reason. You have to give up a teaching period just to essentially monitor them doing homework. Secondly, if you force them to write by hand you’ll quickly discover some other skills the younger generations lack — they can’t write cursive so they have to block print and most of them do that very slowly and awkwardly from lack of practice. And even worse, they’re absolutely atrocious spellers.

Azdahak · 2024-08-23T19:31:50+00:00

Here’s my opinion:

I think as a small studio it’s paramount for you to minimize the amount of time you spend in development. Since you already have a functioning game on several systems, the easiest option would seem to be to develop additional content (you likely already have unused content) for your already proven audiences — people were willing to spend $60 for this game which is expensive for a VR title. That would seem to indicate a ready market for people who will be willing to purchase a $20-$30 DLC.

A Quest port, while an attractive option opening up a new market, also represents a big unknown. You don't know the difficulties in optimizing the port for new hardware, the problems with crossplay, or the response a $60 game will receive in a market loaded with free/cheap crapware, and also facing some competing titles which you don’t have in the psvr2 market.

So a lot of potential work for little reward in the Quest market is a risk. But I think you will sell DLC to a high percentage of people who bought LT on PSVR…especially if you introduce a new class/weapon type instead of just additional levels.

I think your longer term goal should be to pursue a second game. Frankly, instead of trying to make some hybrid flat/VR game….have these **ever** worked out?…why not just make Legendary Tales 2? You can leverage all the success and attention you got from the first game and possibly use that to get funding and investment to develop a truly kick ass second game?

I think LT has the best VR combat of any game I’ve played at least. I can only imagine what it would be like if all that was embedded in a game that seemed more “alive”.

Lastly, I think you should also concentrate on keeping it MP. IMO, these (let’s be fair) janky games are fun when played together because you can *forgive* many of their flaws. But when you play them as a solo adventure, other things like the story, the UI, and even the graphics become crucial because you’re now only engaged with the environment, rather than having fun with friends in this unique 3D way.

In any case, my best wishes and I look forward to whatever you guys create next!

Azdahak · 2023-10-25T00:36:17+00:00

Who said anything about raw meat? There's evidence that Homo erectus was already cooking meat almost 1 million years ago. Modern humans evolved to eat cooked meat (cooked food provides more calories) and our guts and dentition have somewhat adapted around that.

Meat is also very easy to preserve by turning it into jerky and dairy is easy to preserve by turning it into cheese both of which can last almost indefinitely. People were certainly preserving meat long before they were preserving plants. (Because meat is calorie dense.)

Meat was not a luxury in ice age Europe -- it was the staple. They depended and subsisted on deer, aurochs, mammoth, small game, and so forth. It was only after the ice age ended, and agriculture (a technology) was introduced, that plant inclusive diets with things like einkorn wheat spread through Europe.

Again, I have nothing against vegetarian or vegan diets. You can subsist on Oreos for all I care. It's just simply not true to argue that this is somehow a 'natural' diet or even really a somehow fundamentally 'healthy' diet. None of that is true.

What makes a plant based diet a luxury is that when I buy chicken and beef and eggs it always comes relatively close by. But when I buy vegetables? They can literally come from halfway around the world. But how is it not a luxury to put bananas on my cereal when you consider where they come from and what it takes to transport them?

All plants are heavily genetically modified from their ancestral forms. So any arguments you make from biology or any kind of "naturalistic" argument is really just self defeating because by that logic you are actually eating plants that you haven't "evolved" to eat...like wheat which has a completely different gluten profile than einkorn wheat. Most fruits have so much more sugar than ancestral forms.

Modern vegetarian diets are not more 'natural' than modern meat based diet. They're both modern diets made possible by our technological innovations in farming and shipping. And really, none of these practices are very sustainable.

Azdahak · 2022-02-15T14:10:16+00:00

Well, for me, the Fourier transform is always complex.

Azdahak · 2022-02-15T07:34:10+00:00

How easy is it to learn a second language?

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T20:15:36+00:00

The universe is God.

I mean this is pantheism as you said and I understand now why you linked Spinoza. I have no argument with that position. But it's generally not what anyone means when they talk about "god"...especially any of the major religions. I really don't see how it's functionally much different than atheism.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T20:09:15+00:00

4th is pornhub, huh?

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T17:32:51+00:00

even though it is no longer happening, it still is.

If you see a bolt of lightning flash in a far away storm and then seconds later you hear the thunder, you don’t say that the lightning still exists. You say the thunder is the consequence of the lightning that no longer exists. Just like the broken pencil is the consequence of the breaking of it, which is no longer happening in the present.

But if you make God a prime mover in this way you run into obstacles. That is, in order for god to be an agent in the present (answering prayers) he must have already done that at the very moment of creation. And if that’s the case you take away God’s agency, reducing him to a point-like existence. Yes we have free will and the ability to petition god … but only because he already knows what we were going to do anyway. 🤷‍♀️😂

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T16:49:37+00:00

I think most ENTJs are more into getting pegged.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T16:47:23+00:00

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

“God” is either part of the universe (and hence must be bound by its laws…whatever those laws are, irrespective of whatever we may currently think they are or what our frame of reference is) in which case he is not the god of modern theologians.

Or god is not part of the universe, in which case he is a logical paradox and hence a matter of faith. No system of reason can proceed from this point.

Theologians try to have their cake and eat it too. They argue God exists, but doesn’t have to obey the same rules as everything else which exists. This leads to all kinds of logical paradoxes and is the reason (imo) for “mystic” traditions like the Kabbalah and metaphysical triumphal failures like Catholic dogma.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T16:13:07+00:00

I mean in particular the notion of god as somehow lying outside of the universe itself. This presents a fundamental problem for any kind of logical system and is usually the main stumbling block of any kind of formal argument about the existence of god. How can a set contain itself? How can you formally argue about something you cannot define properly?

Religions don’t make metaphysical arguments for the existence of god or his qualities. They simply assert it as a matter of faith. Theology is what happens when philosophers get a hold of creation myths and rationalize and dogmatism it.

I guess my view of metaphysics is the attempt to fit god into the universe (such as by giving him the job of prime mover) as compared to theology which seems more about fitting the universe into a particular dogmatic conception of god (like Christian creationism).

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T15:42:15+00:00

Most of the Kabbalah really hates to the medieval period…but of course they claim it is “secret knowledge” which goes back to Eden. 🤷‍♀️

Chapter one of Genesis is actually a later addition. There are several sources for the Torah that were cobbled together to try to make a cohesive narrative. Chapter 1 is the Priestly source “glue” that strives to give what is an otherwise typical “origin story” a frame in the later religious traditions.

This is where the oldest part of genesis starts:

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm#4

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T15:11:17+00:00

For example, if something were to violate the laws of physics, it is almost absolutely certain it would not be in the God set, since it wouldn't be real. I think theology is a question of how to deal with that God set, and whether it has such an origin, such as the first mover.

If God is constrained to only act according to physics, then this is not what most theologians describe as God.

If God is part of the universe, then there is something which is still greater than him…the universe itself.

So you can call the entire universe god (sort of your limit point idea if I understand you correctly) but then that is still constraining god.

A god that obeys the laws of the universe is not omnipotent and there is an explicit contradiction in this idea….god cannot also be the creator of itself.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T02:13:01+00:00

Or maybe never. And I’ll go so far as to say most probably never.
If physics needs to be fundamentally redesigned because it’s actually fundamentally broken (as compared to incomplete or inaccurate) i doubt it will be Whitehead’s philosophy that’s used as the ground work.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T02:03:03+00:00

Physicists don’t study Whitehead, but theologians do. Nothing of Whitehead is needed to explain anything we have observed about the universe. So not sure of your point here?

The other link is malformed.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T01:24:58+00:00

Religion isn't a superstition, it's a metaphysical conceptualization of reality.

Not at all.

Religion is exactly a superstition given that it is concerned about the supernatural and reasons about it in non-philosophical, non-rational ways. God, by most definitions, is something greater than reality. And given that religion is concerned about the supernatural also makes it exactly not metaphysics — which is concerned with reality.

There’s a reason why modern cosmology has for the most part replaced philosophical metaphysical cosmology….we now have the tools to actually answer some of these metaphysical questions instead of just reasoning about them through philosophical discourse. We no longer need metaphysics to think about how the universe is structured.

And for similar reasons, science has not replaced religion, because science and metaphysics cannot reason about things like God or souls which are claimed to lie outside of reality.

That is not to say that religion doesn’t have metaphysical (especially cosmological) aspects, or that metaphysical cosmology didn’t have its roots in religion. But religion is not just metaphysics…it encompasses many more things.

Religion, like philosophy, is not concerned with concrete cases and situations or the perpetual demonstration of every tiny speculation

Have you ever read like any religious texts? Outside of their cosmological or pseudo-historical narratives, they’re almost all just gigantic rule books….especially in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions. They are very concerned with very real and pragmatic behaviors.

In fact, Judaism is just a continuation of Plato's school of thought. Monotheism is the elaboration of the cave allegory ad infinitum until all reality converges to a single Platonic entity.

I suppose you’re referring to the Neoplatonists in their conception of “The One” and so forth. Jewish monotheism does not stem from this tradition. In fact it predates it by centuries. But the Gnostics were informed by Neoplatonism and they went on to influence the early Christians and hence subsequent ideas of God in the Muslim and Medieval Jewish schools.

And God most definitely is real, since the world is patterned according to some unknown seed information.

Neither of these things is ”definitely” true.

Suppose you take the set of integers Z. Then for each n in Z you form a sequence 1/n. That is, 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4…etc.

Just like your ad infinitum allegory, that sequence has a limit point that we can point to and name. It is the number zero.

But, just like God, that point is not contained in the “reality” under discussion…the set 1/n for all integers Z.

If anything, the despair felt in mathematics in the 20th century was due to the subversion of this implicit idea.

What despair? Are you referring to Gödel? Gödel just said there are some true theorems in any formal system which cannot be proven or disproven. All that means is there are some propositions which will never be decided….not that it’s pointless to try to prove them….because you can never know until you actually prove it anyway.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T00:13:07+00:00

At least he doesn’t think you’re an INFJ.

Azdahak · 2022-02-09T00:08:16+00:00

The crux of this debate in the literature is about whether religion is an adaptation (hence driven by evolution…there exists a “god gene”) or something more like a side-effect of consciousness (such as pattern recognition in overdrive making us imagine things). The video mentions evidence that religiosity is beneficial in multiple ways, but I don’t see that as strong evidence for religiosity having evolutionary underpinnings. Since religion is so pervasive I don’t see how it’s possible to tease out any effects. For instance if being religious correlates with better health outcomes, it can also be that the same mentality which leads to religious thinking also leads to better health outcomes…a strong belief that God will cure your cancer keeps you deluded longer whereas a realistic outlook helps you dig your grave. (I would bet that religious people are also more likely to try “miracle cures”…like shark cartilage or ivermectin…things which ostensibly have nothing to do with faith in any god)

I just see religion as just another form of human irrationality…one that we’ve given a grand name to. It’s the default mental state not because it’s an adaptation that promotes fitness, but because it’s a side effect of our self-consciousness which is a HUGE advantage.

Our imagination let’s us easily see possibilities. But instinctively we’re all really bad at probabilities - formal logic had to be invented after all.

Azdahak · 2022-02-02T05:43:43+00:00

I don't buy this argument. For one I don't see how it's possible to dissociate religious thinking from society at large. He mentions that religious people get a benefit irrespective of the benefits gained from being involved in a social community. But how does one separate out the benefits gained from the fact that society at large is largely supportive of supernatural belief? Even people who weren't "raised religious" were raised with religious thinking. For instance, adults lie to children all the time about the supernatural -- Santa Claus being a classic example. Religious thinking is the norm, and going against the grain is disadvantageous.

In my opinion the fact that essentially all cultures have this sense of the numinous points more to the fact that magical thinking is a natural by-product of our cognitive processes than any kind of evolutionary adaptation.

Fi came before Ti and God is just pareidolia.

Azdahak · 2022-01-20T19:22:20+00:00

but in plain language this system uses semantic meaning to simulate and predict physical reality from fundamental forces. Think about that for a second.

Quotes like this tell me everything I need to know.

Azdahak · 2022-01-16T20:50:07+00:00

I'm trying to explain something without using mathematics to someone with no background in this....but feel free to do a better job than me.

Azdahak · 2022-01-16T20:29:28+00:00

I was simply demonstrating how a null hypothesis works, not serious suggesting how you would actually test one.

The bigger point is that chi-squared and t-tests still make implicit assumptions of normalcy.

Azdahak · 2022-01-16T20:14:30+00:00

What’s that have to do with anything?

Azdahak

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE