I'm an intp female, and I don't really know any other intps. I struggle to relate to people and I was wondering if there are any other intps out there feeling similarly. It's like I'm trapped in my mind and when I express myself, nobody really gets it. This is just kind of a desperate cry to see if there are others like me because I'm just longing for that connection.
Honestly, that was really hard to say. Emotions are not exactly my strong suit. This post was an absolute brain vomit but here we go
I can't relate to most people either, but I've stopped caring about that a long time ago. Really, you can't truly ever relate to anyone because you don't share the exact same experiences and that's fine. (Great, actually. More diversity.) But you can approximate "relating" to someone. From experience, this works better the more they or you open up. (Chances are higher to find subjects of interest. Idk if it's worth the effort though. I mean, you could just read a book instead.) Also, what is interesting or relatable to an INTP is often weird or straight up unknown (I mean, we're pretty quirky and not like other girls.) to the others. Idk how much you can blame 'em for trying to damage control their image or I guess not care about a niche subject.
But sometimes, there is a genuine disconnect (too big to overcome). In that case, don't waste your energy. There are enough other cool people. (It's just that a lot of them are probably introverts hiding in their homes, so good luck meeting them.)
So communication skills are key at relating to people because you get people to open up quicker, which increases your chances of finding common ground. This is why it's shit that INTPs usually struggle to express themselves. Like I think mostly in concepts and systems. It's incredibly difficult to figure out how to put that into linear speech (what to cut and where). So that I give enough context but don't lose focus. But I also have this need to approximate what I believe to be true as best as I can and truth is usually complex. So in reality, I suck at talking. I notice that people stop paying attention to what I'm saying (when I ramble on too long) or don't get it (when I'm trying to be brief). It's just pain and suffering.
With the emotions, I can't help you. I just bottle them up and then one day I'll die.
I've picked up this habit of rambling, lying on my back for whole days and nights on end in my room and thinking ... about Cloud-cuckoo-land.
But I'm rambling. That's why I never do anything - because I ramble on to myself like that. Or perhaps it's the other way round; I ramble on because I never do anything.
Asgard kinda looks like someone built a pipe organ in the alps. But imagine how cool it would be if the buildings could actually make music. That's my new headcanon now.
I just listened to The Natural History of Fear, it was great and i understood nothing
I kinda started out thinking "ooh, someone has recently read 1984", but no. The concept is really interesting. It's also one of those stories (like Scherzo) that shine in the audio format. Btw sound design and editing are phenomenal too.
DOCTOR: When a humming top is at the acme of its gyration, it becomes so steady and quiet that it doesn't seem to move. In this state, it is said to sleep.
Basically, the doctor and companions aren't really in the story. It's kind of just the echoes of their memories (that certain characters in this totalitarian state adopt as their own) that drive the story and lead to a revolution. It works so well because they reuse actors. The listener has already attached attributes to these voices. (For example, the editor gains instant sympathy just by McGann voicing him.)
⠀
Here are some things I thought were neat.
1.) Light City (as a totalitarian state)
Justification: "your state loves you", "anything for the common good", "real love, real loyalty", "better for both of us", " Happiness through acceptance. Productivity through happiness.", "What's good for the Conscience is good for the State. What's good for the State is good for me.", "I did it for love."
Spinning Top Metaphor: totalitarian society is held in an equilibrium ("it becomes so steady and quiet that it doesn't seem to move"). The only way this can be maintained is by preventing new ideas, by preventing questions. Also, Peoples daily lives loop (go round in circles).
"cover the face", dehumanizing people makes it easier to manipulate while keeping a clean conscience
Spinning Top: remain in a "sleeping" state, repress questions that could bring up trauma, a barrier
EDITOR: And the sound of a child's toy, a humming top.
CONSCIENCE: A trigger.
EDITOR: Good. A hypnotic, I agree. And the sounds of building.
CONSCIENCE: Symbolic, of course. A barrier, something to protect the deeper levels.
government forces parallel states of the mind: Conscience, Sub-conscience
DJ: As you are happy?
EDITOR: Do not question me. Questions lead to unhappiness.
Conscience (plans to incite revolution using the Eighth Doctor's memory) and Sub-conscience (follows rules of leaders: censor, editor) are working against each other
NURSE: There's something you've forgotten.
EDITOR: What?
NURSE: Something you need to know.
EDITOR: You, you can't.
NURSE: Shall I tell you what it is?
EDITOR: No. No, you may not tell me anything. I am the Editor. I tell you. Do you hear me? I tell you.
NURSE: I think I will tell you. You'll thank me. It's very important.
EDITOR: No. No, no, no, no.
⠀
NURSE: Look straight ahead. Tell me what you see there.
EDITOR: A figure. A child. Is it me? Or is it you pretending to be me?
NURSE: Yes, and behind you?
EDITOR: An old man.
NURSE: What have you forgotten?
EDITOR: I don't
NURSE: What have you forgotten? Tell me.
EDITOR: I don't know. I don't know. I've forgotten who I am.
3.) Critic of Religion, Doctor Who, and the Media??
The doctor kinda becomes an accidental messiah to this society. His extracted memories are broadcasted, almost used as gospel. But they are warped to fit the narrative, not exactly the same as his memories.
NURSE: The hero, the Doctor, arrived in Light City. Everyone was happy.
The Conscience criticizes the people for following him blindly.
CONSCIENCE: The hero was real. His name was the Doctor. But long ago he fell to the shadows. They took him, rewrote him, gave him back to us as a fiction they knew we would idolise. And us? We follow our hero blindly, day after day, story after story, along a road we once would have burned. And we think we are happy.
The adventures of the Doctor turned into "infotainment" programs (which is to say, Doctor Who itself) can be easily arranged into propaganda tools of the state. Have we in our own watching, listening and reading of Doctor Who, been victims of this kind of manipulation? But we also learn that Doctor Who is the carrier of the ideas of the Doctor (freedom, inquiry, and creativity) which cannot be entirely eradicated.
⠀
4.) Does End Justify the Means?
⠀
EDITOR: Look at them. They're mad. They'll kill us.
CENSOR 2: No birth comes without pain.
EDITOR: Look at our time. I don't even know if I was right or wrong.
EDITOR: A fate I have brought upon the world I love. What have I done? What have I done?
QUOTES
"Memory is such an unpredictable process. Neurons, proteins, the chemical tides that govern our lives." ~ poetry McGann is back babii, also idea of person = sum of their memories -> (against this because:) editor is not doctor although he has all his memories
"A single image fighting through the chaos of misfiring neurons. Overwhelming, ambiguous." ~ poetry McGann is having the time of his life
"Everything we could be and everything we mustn't be all mixed up together in the same.. ahhh, at the same... a rainbow. *happiest voice ever & smol giggle* I saw a rainbow." ~ poetry McGann must be protected
"Of course there are lost episodes commissioned, but not made. Made but misfield post-broadcast. Shear incompetence." ~ I see what you did there Big Fish and I like it
Just listened to Zagreus for the first time and it is BIg Lolz.
There is a bit where the doctor was trapped in a box by a cat (yes, you read that right). And I think the following conversation needs to be heard by the world.
Dr: "It's getting really hard to breathe now." strangling noise & coughing "That's it cat, I'm dEAD."
Cat: "Are you sure?"
Dr: "Yup, hearts have stopped, no pulses, nothing."
Cat: "Dead doctors don't talk."
Dr: "That's true.. BUT what if you're mad?"
Cat: "Mad, I'm not mad."
Dr: "Can you see me? Nooo, but you can hear my voice. Hearing voices. Terrible sign. I am dead, absolutely. I promise you. I am dead and you are mad."
Cat: "Calls me mad, I am insulted."
Dr: "You're the one who is talking to a dead man."
For the meaning of the text, it does not matter if you think A and I think B. The Author wrote down one word but you can picture two different things. It can also change by words that come after it. So not only can we come up with two different ideas, but the idea changes as we go along. The moment a text is finalized by an author, it can be read in a potentially infinite number of ways. The author has no control over the background you bring to the text. He loses control once it's on the page. Therefore the meaning doesn't come from the author. Meaning comes from the sum of your personal experiences and your reactions to the words on the page (that can change anytime). Which means that we have a potentially infinite number of meanings. We shouldn't use an author's intent or biography to distill meaning but instead from the text itself. Doing otherwise limits the text.
But death of the author can not be applied in its purest form; art can not be viewed as fully detached from its creator. It does not eradicate the author from the equation but discredits him down to mere another influence or experience, instead of being the source of the meaning, the highest authority.
The influence of the author on his work (and the other way around, e.g., financial profit), oftentimes even subconscious or instinctual are practically unavoidable. Even outside of communities, in which discussions about artists interviews, etc. are not frequent, seeing the text as detached from its deemed irrelevant influences proves to be a challenge for our subjective, context searching brains. Our minds are still poled towards inquiry and assumption, for which the author does not require a face.
