User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 174

  1. #31
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    In homage to our resident ISTJs, here are my thoughts on The Box and Your Placement Around It



    These poor people are fighting to get outside of the box.

    The box seems unhappy because no one wants to be inside it.


    Once they get out here is where they land in a beautiful gift shop filled with more boxes to choose from.


    Boxes only change in size and exterior/interior decor in my mind.

  2. #32
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    So what is the box? conventions?

    Wouldn't the case goes for Ne is coming up with new places to put boxes? Ni is linking between boxes, Se is noticing boxes, and Si for looking into boxes?

    And while we're at it...

    Ti for drawing new boxes, Te for grouping boxes, Fe for pulling out contents of boxes, Fi for organizing contents of boxes?

    I guess my point is that, regardless of type, we all have our own boxes. To say we're "thinking outside the box" only means we're redefining our boxes.

    Edit:
    Protean: EXACTLY! I love that visual depiction...

  3. #33
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    My guess is that most of us were bullied as children and we need something to increase our sense of superiority. Bragging about our N-ship and the notion it's a minority dichotomy (aside from these forums, of course) is one of those ways because it makes some feel unique and elitist, or 1337, if you will.

  4. #34
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    IQ is - and always has been - a metric designed to assess wealth.

  5. #35
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    IQ is - and always has been - a metric designed to assess wealth.
    Interestingly, a lot of the high scorers were dirt poor.

  6. #36
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    No, I'm saying that because I believe it to be true. As I stated before, I didn't disparage intuition by saying that it makes people unable to see plain facts in front of their face. I honestly don't think that being intuitive necessarily correlates with higher intelligence (just as I don't believe that sensing necessarily correlates witb being more "sensitive" or "sensible"). These are just two points on a spectrum of how people look at and interpret the world. I honestly think you don't know me well enough to comment here. I could be any combinatory amalgamation of 4 letters and still realize this. I really thought that these sensory "bias" claims were overblown and somewhat silly, but some of the post in this forum are leading me to believe that they have some credence.
    i never said intuitives were more intelligent than sensors. i just said the actual functions Ne and/or Ni are necessary for intelligence. everyone uses them. i know plenty of Ns who use them too much, even.

    and i don't KNOW you very well, but my gut tells me that you're an ENFP. i've read a lot of your posts. this is just my opinion anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    IMO, it's evidence of bias against sensors that people like pure_mercury who are clearly bright & clever are "elevated" to iNtuitive status.
    that's not the reason. it's because i see Ne. don't assume you know what my motives are. i'm just putting my thoughts out there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    It's disgusting, Ivy.
    ugh, these are the kind of posts that just get me angry. no substance at all; just jumping on board as the PC police. and Ivy's assumptions are wrong anyways.

    you must be an S! sorry, couldn't resist that joke there.

  7. #37
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatsWhatHeSaid View Post
    I wouldn't really say that intelligence is owned by the intuitive function. Thinking outside the box is one aspect of intelligence, but there's a lot more. Your definition seems a bit self-serving, no, Dissonance?
    it is self serving. on the other hand, you are straight up DUMB if you never use an N function. jump on me all you want, but it's true.

    there are a lot of other aspects of intelligence, i agree. but i wouldn't call someone intelligent unless they could apply old ideas to new concepts, understand metaphor, widen their perspective, make connections between seemingly unrelated things, etc.

    again, this IS self serving. i admit it. but it's how i've always judged intelligence, way before i ever knew about MBTI.

    also, even though this should be completely clear by now, EVERYONE USES N FUNCTIONS. this is not an anti-sensor rant. this isn't a pro intuitive rant. this is just a claim that you need to use intuitive FUNCTIONS every once in a while. intuitive people often miss obvious stuff because they intuit too much. everyone has their flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    Re: dissonance

    Wait a minute.. what about sensors that have highly developed thinking functions? They don't think outside the box?
    well, sure they do, when they use N functions.

    i dunno, maybe "the box" isn't very well defined. examples of thinking outside the box are using metaphor, seeing multiple perspectives, imagining, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    I agree with this.

    Thinking outside the box helped with inventions and whatnot, but I can't quite commit to the notion that it is necessary to intelligence. Say intelligence is making the right decision at the right time. Sensors surely can be included into this group.
    first of all, you saying "sensors surely can be included into this group" makes it clear that my point is being misinterpreted. sensors can surely be intelligent based on my claims. i'm not talking about sensors vs. intuitives. i'm talking about never using N functions vs. using them.

    but i agree with you; if you define intelligence as making the "right" decision, then N functions are less necessary. still useful though.

    you have to understand -- the way i think of functions is that they're mini computer processes. in a one second span, we probably use at least 10 functions. maybe we use all 8 of them. Ns use N functions more often than S functions, and vice versa. but this is a matter of percentages. maybe an N uses N functions 50 times in a minute and an S uses them 20 times.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Thinking outside the box is a P thing, not an N thing.
    huh? how does Se think outside the box? how does Ni NOT think outside the box?

    define the box.

  8. #38
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    All this "thinking outside the box" talk strikes me as being very inside the box.

    Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting. Anyone able to "think outside the box" would surely realize that we aren't confined to using 8 arbitrarily-labelled ways of thinking. Sure, an INFJ will tend to think most often in a way which is labelled as Ni. Maybe INFJs tend to be more "thinking outside the box" than those who have other dominant functions. But the mind isn't limited to thinking in those rigid ways. It certainly isn't a switchboard effect....more of a great big mushy puddle, with thought tendencies that may reflect mixtures of various functions, with the concentrations changing at different times, and further aspects that have nothing to do with function at all. It's not like you automatically go dominant-X function when you need to do something traditionally associated with that function. Be wary of oversimplifying something that can only be simplified to a certain level before it becomes gibberish.

    And if I really need to point it out, for ANY kind of intelligence you need to integrate all the sensing functions, both S and N, and then go beyond that. Ni to see the possibilities. Ne to connect the dots. Se to see reality. Si to recognize things for what they are. Etc. You're a complete moron if you're completely shutting out any function. But once you start talking on that level, bringing it up in this forum is pointless. Pretty much anything spoken in absolutes is going to be wrong, because there are very few absolutes in this world. I mean come on, it's so obvious that it proves nothing, and means nothing. So why are you saying it?

    I just found it very ironic that you're arguing that your Ni is the ideal "thinking out of the box" function... and you're arguing that from your position firmly inside the box of the MBTI framework.

  9. #39
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    All this "thinking outside the box" talk strikes me as being very inside the box.

    Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting. Anyone able to "think outside the box" would surely realize that we aren't confined to using 8 arbitrarily-labelled ways of thinking. Sure, an INFJ will tend to think most often in a way which is labelled as Ni. Maybe INFJs tend to be more "thinking outside the box" than those who have other dominant functions. But the mind isn't limited to thinking in those rigid ways. It certainly isn't a switchboard effect....more of a great big mushy puddle, with thought tendencies that may reflect mixtures of various functions, with the concentrations changing at different times, and further aspects that have nothing to do with function at all. It's not like you automatically go dominant-X function when you need to do something traditionally associated with that function. Be wary of oversimplifying something that can only be simplified to a certain level before it becomes gibberish.

    And if I really need to point it out, for ANY kind of intelligence you need to integrate all the sensing functions, both S and N, and then go beyond that. Ni to see the possibilities. Ne to connect the dots. Se to see reality. Si to recognize things for what they are. Etc. You're a complete moron if you're completely shutting out any function. But once you start talking on that level, bringing it up in this forum is pointless. Pretty much anything spoken in absolutes is going to be wrong, because there are very few absolutes in this world. I mean come on, it's so obvious that it proves nothing, and means nothing. So why are you saying it?

    I just found it very ironic that you're arguing that your Ni is the ideal "thinking out of the box" function... and you're arguing that from your position firmly inside the box of the MBTI framework.
    wait...are you responding to me?

    if so, you must not have read all of my posts. and if you have, i really don't feel like explaining my viewpoint again. everyone here's jumping all over me.

    yes, you need S functions to live. Si is necessary for intelligence. blah blah blah. i've made my point, and i've made it clearly. if you want to get all offended and put words/ideas in my mouth, have at it. honestly, half of what you're offended by, i never even said.

    also:
    Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting.
    isn't that the point of the functions? to break down thought processes into categories? wouldn't you say you NEED Se to take in sensations from the environment?

  10. #40
    Procrastinating
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    All this "thinking outside the box" talk strikes me as being very inside the box.

    Saying that you "need" a certain function to do X is very limiting. Anyone able to "think outside the box" would surely realize that we aren't confined to using 8 arbitrarily-labelled ways of thinking. Sure, an INFJ will tend to think most often in a way which is labelled as Ni. Maybe INFJs tend to be more "thinking outside the box" than those who have other dominant functions. But the mind isn't limited to thinking in those rigid ways. It certainly isn't a switchboard effect....more of a great big mushy puddle, with thought tendencies that may reflect mixtures of various functions, with the concentrations changing at different times, and further aspects that have nothing to do with function at all. It's not like you automatically go dominant-X function when you need to do something traditionally associated with that function. Be wary of oversimplifying something that can only be simplified to a certain level before it becomes gibberish.

    And if I really need to point it out, for ANY kind of intelligence you need to integrate all the sensing functions, both S and N, and then go beyond that. Ni to see the possibilities. Ne to connect the dots. Se to see reality. Si to recognize things for what they are. Etc. You're a complete moron if you're completely shutting out any function. But once you start talking on that level, bringing it up in this forum is pointless. Pretty much anything spoken in absolutes is going to be wrong, because there are very few absolutes in this world. I mean come on, it's so obvious that it proves nothing, and means nothing. So why are you saying it?

    I just found it very ironic that you're arguing that your Ni is the ideal "thinking out of the box" function... and you're arguing that from your position firmly inside the box of the MBTI framework.
    Here we go again. What is this trend the last few days to try and induce all types being the same? I came here to learn. I might as well just quit reading if everyone is going to say, in one way or another, that all types are the same because they use some of the same function some of the time ... geez... give me a break. Feelers and Thinkers are the same. Faith and Logic is the same. "Ss" and "Ns" are the same... its crossing my eyes.

Similar Threads

  1. [Other] INTP vs. ENTP - Interpersonal Intelligence
    By MadTeaParty in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-22-2015, 12:59 AM
  2. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  3. Intelligence vs Ability
    By Quinlan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-21-2010, 12:07 AM
  4. [MBTItm] Worth vs. Intelligence
    By Jonny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  5. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM

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