User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 234

  1. #121
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    I understand that. So we cannot say that everyone from type A is automatically better at any skill than everyone from type B.

    We can, however, observe trends in the way skill levels tend to be distributed among people of different psychological types.

    It's apparent that, on average, INTJs tend to be better at calculus than ESFPs.

    Are there some ESFPs who are better at calculus than some INTJs? Certainly, but that's not the point. If we picked 100,000 INTJs and 100,000 ESFPs at random and added up the total calculus proficiency in each group, which one do you think would come out on top?

    I want to know which skills you think ENTJs tend to be weak in on average, relative to other types.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #122
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.
    Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill. Preference doesn't equal skill.

    I love this thread.

    Signed,
    Future ISFP CEO
    'Effective Leaders Empower And Encourage'
    (hand me that annual report)

  3. #123
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LeafAndSky View Post
    'Effective Leaders Empower And Encourage'
    That's correct.

  4. #124
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    That's correct.
    Would you say there's any merit to the idea that preference translates into skill over time, since repeatedly doing the things you prefer will necessarily lead to greater average skill in those areas?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #125
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Would you say there's any merit to the idea that preference translates into skill over time, since repeatedly doing the things you prefer will necessarily lead to greater average skill in those areas?
    Do you think if you play guitar long enough you'll be as skilled as Eric Clapton, Eddie Van Halen, or Neal Schon?

  6. #126
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    Do you think if you play guitar long enough you'll be as skilled as Eric Clapton, Eddie Van Halen, or Neal Schon?
    No, but I do think I'll be better at it than most people who rarely play the guitar. I think untalented people who practice a lot will be better than talented people who practice rarely, in most cases.

    And thus, preference translates into skill.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #127
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    No, but I do think I'll be better at it than most people who rarely play the guitar. I think untalented people who practice a lot will be better than talented people who practice rarely, in most cases.

    And thus, preference translates into skill.
    Practice being human.
    If you practice long enough, you will become skilled at being human.

  8. #128
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post

    While we're on the subject of Ni, let's talk about typical Ni mistakes. Ni has a bad habit of thinking its perspective is so unique and original that it's impossible that anyone could ever have thought of it before. Ni-ers who are relatively inexperienced in a new area often make the mistake of thinking they've discovered some fundamental flaw in the system that nobody else has ever noticed and that only they were clever and perceptive enough to pick up on. This feeds Ni's need to view its perspectives as revolutionary and to consider itself a master of "seeing through to the REAL meaning."
    I not only don't think this way, but I think it's weird that you do. You are attributing intent to me that just doesn't exist. I don't want to be revolutionary. It's just easy for me to see some things, and to see some things that function theory doesn't represent. That is all. It's natural where I'm at in my life and with my current interest that I follow this through a ways.

    Occasionally, a profoundly brilliant Ni dom actually does successfully see something nobody has ever seen before and redefines an entire previously established school of thought. Much more often, though, Ni doms who haven't yet mastered the already existing rules will erroneously believe they've discovered gaping errors because: A) they don't want to accept that their "discoveries" have already been discovered and sufficiently dealt with because this threatens their ability to view themselves as revolutionary out-of-the-box pioneers, and B) they grossly overestimate their grasp of the already existing material.
    I have never tried to be, or say, that I'm profoundly brilliant. I don't even think that way. If the things I'm saying have been written about, I'd really appreciate the links to read about them. But it still won't stop me thinking about it. Nothing can stop that. In fact, so far it's YOU who has gone around tooting your own horn about how much you know, etc., and how much I don't know.



    I've had about enough of your self-righteous preaching about open-mindedness. Your failure to grasp the mistakes in your interpretation doesn't translate into everyone else being "closed-minded", but rejecting anyone who points them out as "closed-minded" plays perfectly into Ni's preferred self-image. "I'm too amazingly perceptive and uniquely insightful for all these morons! They just can't see it!"
    Emotional. oooohhhh. pms? or Fi?

    When it comes to theories that have been around a long time, and have already had a number of great minds working on them, there's a general rule of thumb that applies: Whenever you think you've found a glaring error in the already existing theory that somehow nobody but you has ever noticed, chances are it's already been discovered and adequately explained a long time ago. Give that some consideration.
    I never said glaring in a self-righteous way. I said make a better, more cohesive theory that more people can access and understand. Why are you so loyal to a fledgling theory that nearly creates more problems than it ameliorates?




    For fuck's sake, my mom is an Fe dom and she doesn't have a damn clue what the term "Fe" even means. Marm is more proficient in functional theory than you are. Having a function in your top two does not entitle you to automatically understand its conceptual meaning any better than anyone else.
    I think this is one of those ad hominem things again. You really should get a handle on your emotions, my friend. And I agree about the last sentence, I would more likely trust someone's judgment in that regard that shared my functions; otherwise, only if they were very skilled at interpreting functions, or had experience at psychoanalysis with a focus on typology.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  9. #129
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    I not only don't think this way, but I think it's weird that you do. You are attributing intent to me that just doesn't exist. I don't want to be revolutionary. It's just easy for me to see some things, and to see some things that function theory doesn't represent. That is all. It's natural where I'm at in my life and with my current interest that I follow this through a ways.



    I have never tried to be, or say, that I'm profoundly brilliant. I don't even think that way. If the things I'm saying have been written about, I'd really appreciate the links to read about them. But it still won't stop me thinking about it. Nothing can stop that. In fact, so far it's YOU who has gone around tooting your own horn about how much you know, etc., and how much I don't know.





    Emotional. oooohhhh. pms? or Fi?



    I never said glaring in a self-righteous way. I said make a better, more cohesive theory that more people can access and understand. Why are you so loyal to a fledgling theory that nearly creates more problems than it ameliorates?






    I think this is one of those ad hominem things again. You really should get a handle on your emotions, my friend. And I agree about the last sentence, I would more likely trust someone's judgment in that regard that shared my functions; otherwise, only if they were very skilled at interpreting functions, or had experience at psychoanalysis with a focus on typology.
    Ok, I was actually looking for this for a different thread, but I think it fits better here.

    Can you honestly tell me that this person has Fe? Her morality is so Fi...in fact, while I'm not an Objectivist by any stretch of the imagination, I completely agree with what she says about love at 7:02 - 7:15. So unbelievably Fi. I could happily quote what she says there.

    [YOUTUBE="7ukJiBZ8_4k"]A famous INTJ who absolutely did not have Fe[/YOUTUBE]

  10. #130
    Senior Member LeafAndSky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    308

    Default

    [YOUTUBE]

    Wow.

    I hadn't realized she was watchable on video.

    That was just . . . scary. The force of personality. The willingness to tell everyone else how they should be, in detail, when she's clearly not even LIKE the majority herself.

    Scariest of all: there is no way I could even envision forming a bond with her, and that's the first thing I do with people, and I do it well. She seemed utterly unreachable.

Similar Threads

  1. Long Hair V.S. Short Hair
    By kyuuei in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 08:07 PM
  2. [NF] NF: since we think 'differently' than normal folks...
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 10:54 AM
  3. Range in MBTI types.
    By Nillerz in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 06:10 PM
  4. Thinking/Feeling game: Same Difference
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 08:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO