I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, and I was glad to see it posted here. This poll also seems to have initiated (in my opinion) some of the best discussions I've seen on this board in a while. Although some polls and "Ask HN"s can be a bit stupid, the good ones are really good.
So, yeah, I'm an INTP. I've lately been acting a bit more E than usual, but I'm still definitely I (am all I am).
(Why oh why didn't Common Lisp abbreviate integerp?)
No, that's absurd. It's about the level of abstraction, not how close it is to natural languages. Yes, most natural languages support high levels of abstraction, but that does not mean that languages that support high levels of abstraction are close to natural languages. They can still be quite far apart in other ways.
Basically, low levels of abstraction are closer to the underlying mechanics. Higher levels of abstraction allow you to think about what happens without having to worry about the fiddly little details. It's like the difference between neurology (comparatively low-level) and psychology (higher level).
No, it really depends on the teacher. My precalculus teacher (probably the best math teacher I've ever had) gives progressively harder tests/quizzes as we learn more about each topic. He ignores the textbook and writes the tests himself.
(Incidentally, we've recently been covering derivatives.)
In an essay published in the Salmon of Doubt, Douglas Adams said something about how every new medium starts out as porn, and the other genres move in afterwards.
Maybe radical changes can only start within a certain distance from the top, and as the company gets bigger, the bottom moves further away from the top and can no longer initiate those sorts of things. Just a thought.