I stumbled upon the Myers-Briggs type indicator a long time ago, obtaining the result INTP. At the time I thought it was just another personality test on the Internet, but last week I heard one of my apartment-mates using his INTJ result to explain his views on a particular topic. After researching it for a bit, I learned that the Myers-Briggs type is actually widely used.
Of course, there are many caveats to the result, and there is much variation. In fact, just to confirm it, I tried different unofficial websites and ended up with INTP on all of them except one, which gave ENTP.
The way the type indicator works is that each letter represents a particular preference. The preferences, given as dichotomies, are given below:
(E) Extraversion – (I) Introversion
(S) Sensing – (N) Intuition
(T) Thinking – (F) Feeling
(J) Judgment – (P) Perception
After reading through some articles on INTP, I found that the predictions fit almost perfectly. Just to make sure, I checked some of the other types to make sure I would not fit those, and indeed it was the case.
(Credits to a friend at Cornell for finding this behavior on Wolfram.)
Here are some interesting or funny quotes on INTPs from various websites, some of which particularly applied.
“INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into.”
“They are the ‘absent-minded professors’, who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions.”
“Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others.”
“INTPs cannot stand routine work – they would much rather tackle a difficult theoretical problem.”
“They absolutely love new ideas and theories and would never miss an opportunity to discuss them with other people – however, this never-ending thinking process also makes them look somewhat pensive and detached, as INTPs are perfectly able to conduct full-fledged debates in their own heads.”
This last point is interestingly worded and strikingly true. I debate myself all the time. I even play myself at chess. And the best part—at least once, I have played an entire chess game in a dream. Just a couple weeks ago, I also logically corrected some statement, while in a dream. (Well, technically I was talking to a person who corrected me, but given that this was in my dream, this meant I basically corrected myself in a dream.) I wonder what Freud would say about that.
The first site that introduced me to Myers-Briggs was actually this one, which lists celebrities by type, celebrities including academics, scientists, philosophers, writers, politicians, social activists, etc. In addition, the INTP page has a link to a comparison between Richard Dawkins (INTP) and Christopher Hitchens (INTJ). The comparison is pretty interesting (click to expand). [Edit: The site has a free MBTI test. With a sample size of 1, it seems pretty accurate as I did get INTP.]
Finally, I want to talk about the one ENTP result. Perhaps INTP and ENTP are close enough? On one of the tests where I scored INTP, a test that gave percentage breakdowns, the NTP were each 70-90%, while the I vs E was only 60%. I suppose this makes sense as for some situations, especially during time pressure, I forgo logic and use intuition instead (apparently one of the differences is dominance on thinking for INTP versus on intuition for ENTP). In speed chess, I basically play solely using intuition, unless my intuition tells me I actually need to calculate. Of course there are many other differences between the two. Overall it seems I may be both INTP and ENTP, but with INTP more active.
Procrastination is the art of freeing up one’s current schedule by delegating tasks to later times, which are often more convenient. As the motto of the Procrastinator’s Club of America states, “Don’t do today what you can put off till tomorrow.”
Procrastination is shunned by many, praised by few. People who procrastinate tend to be less productive than those who do things today rather than put them off till tomorrow. But I know plenty of people who identify themselves as procrastinators, yet are highly productive, intelligent, and capable people. So, even if an inverse correlation between procrastination and productivity holds generally true, the exceptional cases show that there is not necessarily a cause-effect relationship between the two, especially not if procrastination is supposed to be the cause.
Most students reading this post will probably recall some time he or she procrastinated extensively on a homework assignment. I know that a select few of you almost never procrastinate—kudos to you. However, for the rest of us, procrastination is a part of our homework life. The cause of procrastination varies. We might simply not like the assignment. We might have a more interesting assignment we are trying to accomplish. We might be distracted or amused by a form of entertainment. Whatever the case, we tend to avoid things out till deadlines rise into plain sight.
The only negative side effect of procrastination in this case is the possibility of a large accumulation of assignments before a major project.
But what about the positive? First, we live a more natural life. Those who do every homework assignment the day it is assigned—they respond quickly, but nevertheless respond to the actions and decisions of others rather than try to self-motivate themselves to do it. We procrastinators like to mix things up; we might sometimes finish an assignment very early and with great effort if we find it interesting. Second, we are more efficient, and thus have more time. If we push an assignment to only a matter of days—or hours—before it is due, we often find ourselves working faster. True, the quality might suffer slightly, but that’s fine with us. We make up for that by occasional works of unusually high quality. Third, we are more carefree. We set our own goals and responsibilities rather than let someone else set them.
Perhaps a truer maxim for the procrastinator is, “Act when you want to.”
Before I begin, I would like to make clear that the subject of this post is sleep, something that should be familiar to all of us (hopefully). I am not trying to make a scientific breakthrough on sleep or even outline recent discoveries on the subject. In fact, I am being somewhat unscientific in that I do not have tables of numbers and data to show any trends, and I am a (somewhat sleep-deprived) student, not a psychologist, biologist, or neurologist. What I have here is a heuristic approach, and I am merely sharing my abstract, qualitative thoughts on the puzzling phenomenon of sleep. Let us begin.
We need sleep. This point is pretty self-explanatory. In my entire life, I have done only one all-nighter, but even then, I fell into an extended nap some time in the second afternoon. It was simply too hard to stay awake. That feeling when your eyelids want to close, when your head wants to rest on something, and when your body wants to hibernate—this dreadful feeling that most of us have at some point in our lives felt—is, for the large part, irresistible.
By that, I mean there are few things that can sustain our conscience and keep us awake when our bodies beg for rest. However, as few as these methods may be, they are almost all related to biological constructs. For instance, coffee can keep us awake for some period of time because of a direct interaction between caffeine and our bodies. Physical danger, too, would counter sleepiness as an evolutionary principle. After all, it would be advantageous for the survival of a species to be able to resist the restrictions set by sleepiness in critical, life-or-death scenarios; for instance, if a crocodile were to attack me, I would certainly not want to fall asleep. While sleep may in general help my survival, it certainly does not in this case. To make an analogy to writing, just as successful writers know and utilize exceptions to the standard laws of grammar, successful species inhibit a generally good phenomenon for a more important objective: survival. In other words, the ability to resist sleep can be a direct result of natural struggle, the survival of the fittest.
This is intriguing because, if we take one step back, we may ask ourselves, Was not sleep itself an adaptation in the survival of the fittest? Yes, it was, and that is why it is difficult for us to change the general actions of sleep. It has been, in some sense, programmed into our bodies through many millions of years of evolution. We should find it most challenging, therefore, in a single lifetime to counter the effects of adaptations set in place for millions of years.
Why would an animal need sleep? If visibility was the most effective method of sensory-perception, then a predator, for instance, would have a much smaller chance of finding food at night than in the daytime. If the average energy intake from food during night was less than the expended energy, then it would be advantageous to have zero energy change during the night, i.e. through sleep. At that point, the prey too would have no reason to be expending valuable energy during the night and would hence increase its sleep. Another interesting note is that some animals, like reptiles, are cold blooded, and thus cannot function as efficiently at lower temperatures. Since there is more heat during the day, it would benefit the species to operate during the day instead of at night. Therefore, the factors of light and heat during daytime were key factors in the development of the evolutionary phenomenon of sleep.
Jumping back to the evolved inhibition of sleep, we find that it is by no means contradictory to the evolution of sleep itself. Simply, animals that learned to sleep were in general more successful than those who did not, and those in the former group that learned how to control it were also in general more successful than those who did not. This chain of thought does not seem to contribute much insight to the issue of sleep, but it does demonstrate the power of natural selection.
But there is a point in the evolutionary analysis of sleep. One popular phenomenon that keeps people up, and hence inhibits sleep, is actually much more used and widespread than you may think. In fact, if you are viewing this post on the Internet right now, then you are definitely in this phenomenon’s grasp. Yes, this phenomenon I am referring to is the computer. Remember I said I have pulled off one all-nighter in my life? That was in front of a computer screen. While playing a video game. Now, wait a minute, games and media have been around for centuries, just not on a computer. However, there is something different about a screen. I remember last year that one night, just before a European history test, I fell asleep with the textbook open in front of me. Honestly!
In contrast, it is nearly impossible to fall sleep while in front of a computer screen with Internet access or a good visual game loaded. Regarding a book, the book itself does not change or interact with the reader. Recall that the evolutionary principle for inhibiting sleep was to avoid danger. Your brain will hardly interpret any danger when digesting information from a book or a text source, even if the book is about something dangerous, as it was probably published many years ago. Next came the radio. Of course, now you could hear things in real-time, but the problem was, you would hear about danger, but you would never see it coming at you or feel any actual threat. With the television, things changed. Now you could not only hear the danger, but also see it happening in front of you. Yet, even then you still felt detached from the danger, because it could not cause real damage to you, nor could you do anything to repel it.
The computer changed everything. In the case of many video games, you are now not only seeing and hearing the danger coming at you, but you also have the capability to defend your “character” against it. In fact, having control of a virtual character, or avatar, changes the situation quite drastically. New technology and graphics allow games to seem much more realistic than ever before. Your senses and thought then link with the avatar on the screen. Whatever danger that comes toward it is also a danger heading towards you. The ability to defend or save a life, in this case your own, fits in perfectly with sleep’s evolutionary principle. Our ability to sit in front of a screen and play video games far past midnight is a mere reflection of our evolution. When we feel physically threatened or in danger, we have a heightened awareness that counters the adaptation of sleep.
Now, what about the Internet? I feel compelled to stumble upon new websites and read things, even though I just said earlier that I fell asleep while reading a textbook. What makes the Internet a better, or at least more energizing, place for reading? I am not exactly sure. Certainly the faster rate of publication and the ability to post comments makes the web more interactive. And because interactiveness, as shown in the case of video games, is more alerting to our senses, this would seem to be the reason why even reading on the Internet is so much more entertaining.
Are coffee, crocodiles, and computers the only things that can cause us to resist sleep? Certainly not. In school, or at least at my high school, many students are deprived of sleep due to the cramming of a pile of homework accumulated through rigorous programs and courses as well as through procrastination. Here, the factor is almost neo-evolutionary, if that is a term. It is a sort of artificial evolution. We students are certainly not competing for raw survival. We are competing for grades, which in turn supposedly mark our general success. (I could give a spiel on the grade system, but I will not do so here due to irrelevance.)
Because this neo-evolutionary phenomenon can also keep us awake, should it be considered a biological effect? I think so. I do not profess to be an expert on the biology of sleep, but I will note that if an artificial struggle can disrupt our sleep patterns, then it must, in some way, affect our biology. I would conjecture that this sleep deprivation caused by completing homework affects our body similarly to sleep inhibition caused by natural threats. Our brains probably interpret both as threats, one threatening our grades and the other threatening our physical body.
I am feeling sleepy right now. Can writing inhibit sleep? It does seem to, and it is peculiar in that it does not fit any of the biological causes aforementioned. Perhaps this is a good thing. Maybe it shows that we humans can go beyond the evolutionary calls of survival and competition. We all have some interest, I would hope, a passion, for which we can sacrifice some sleep. By doing something to keep ourselves awake, whether writing poems, learning mathematics, practicing a musical instrument, or even chatting with friends on social networking sites, we show that we are not an aloof, self-interested species. We help others even when we do not have “spare” time, when nature would be normally telling us to sleep. The inhibition of sleep may truly reveal the optimism of humanity.