Thinking Inside The Box

[OvermindDL1]

Ah, an INTP eh?  The INTJ bane if you get them in close proximity from what I have read.
They both like to argue, but INTJs like to argue to learn, even taking up the opposite side, where-as INTPs argue to make themselves feel better, but generally try to refrain from arguing so as to not draw attention.
INTPs do tend to be better in 'perfection' though, they generally will not think up new ideas (like in physics), but tend to be quite good in proving or disproving something thought up by someone else.  Tend to be more focused on one thing, able to work on it more efficiently then an INTJ, who may be working on a variety of things.  Tend to not get the overall big picture, but can be perfectionist with details (INTJs tend to look at the big picture, only looking at details when they need it to complete the big picture, but looking no further).  Etc...

Do you remember what percentage you were on each letter?

EDIT1:  Apparently the friction between INTJ/INTP is mostly due to the INTJs 6th archetype, Critic:

For an INTJ, Introverted Thinking directed at us instinctively causes us to assume it's negative criticism, and it takes practice to recognize the positive side, which is usually how it's intended.  This is one of the most common causes of friction between INTJs and INTPs -- the INTP will take in an INTJs ideas and offer an Introverted Thinking analysis of them, and we immediately get defensive, because we perceive it via our critic archetype.

Just a fundamental difference in how we think things verbally.
INTJs can take just about any criticism, except the kind put out by INTPs.

EDIT2:  Interesting when you look at all 8 archetypes lined up, INTJ and INTP are exact opposites, everything in inversed...
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[Red Devil]

Hey, quit picking on me.

BTW, you've got a few run-on sentences in your last post.

[OvermindDL1]

Yep, that is indeed your style.

Your type also says you would make a good code monkey, why not learn and join me.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[Red Devil]

:cheesygrin:

[mrtwosheds]

And no, time itself has been measured, time itself is an energy state that can be measured, we did not measure the energy of things inside of it, time itself has literally been measured.  It is not 'nothing'.

How?

Hmmm , ah yes I suppose if you think time is actually an energy state, then it would appear to output measurable values from a calculation.
I suppose it does depend on how you look at things. It does, perception is everything, we are firmly bound to our own energy states and view everything else relative to that. Without perceivers the questions could not be asked and the answers would have no meaning.