User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 31

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    By critique do you mean 'insulting without evidence'? Because you are the only person so far who I've encountered who has been doing that. Everyone else seems to believe in it, like one might believe in chemistry. And 5,368 posts. Wow. I can tell you have a life out of trying to insult others.

  2. #12
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goodgrief View Post
    By critique do you mean 'insulting without evidence'? Because you are the only person so far who I've encountered who has been doing that. Everyone else seems to believe in it, like one might believe in chemistry. And 5,368 posts. Wow. I can tell you have a life out of trying to insult others.
    I do make a habit of not making ad hominem attacks which are against the rules of Typology Central.

    Unfortunately ad hominem attacks are de rigueur for those defending a lie.

  3. #13
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Rather than being based on evidence and reason, graphology is a confidence trick and a fraud like astrology, homeopathy, alchemy, creationism, phrenology, Lysenkoism or MBTI.

    To believe such New Age nostrums is demeaning.
    I do declare! Pseudoscience is what makes the world go 'round! (Pseudoscientifically, that is!)

    We don't need any of your filthy empirical evidence!
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  4. #14
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Stop this bickering. The topic awaits.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  5. #15
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    I do declare! Pseudoscience is what makes the world go 'round! (Pseudoscientifically, that is!)

    We don't need any of your filthy empirical evidence!
    Quite so.

    And the New Age is not so new. I reached its height of popularity in Germany before WW II.

    It married the hatred of usury with eugenics.

    And the usurers were the Jews and eugenics was the final solution.

    And, "Personality Types", was written by Carl Jung to complement eugenics.

  6. #16
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Quite so.

    And the New Age is not so new. I reached its height of popularity in Germany before WW II.

    It married the hatred of usury with eugenics.

    And the usurers were the Jews and eugenics was the final solution.

    And, "Personality Types", was written by Carl Jung to complement eugenics.
    How dare you?! Eugenics is the best pseudoscience of all! No, wait, Time Cube Theory a.k.a. Cubicism, beats it by a million miles.

    Also, in contribution to this threads actual topic, my stories and poetry usually involve characters and ideas that are in line with my personality traits and core set of ideals.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  7. #17
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goodgrief View Post
    I was thinking about how different MBTI types would vary in their style of writing. I'm not sure but I think these ideas might be close to reality. Also the characters would probably be closish in personality to the writer for the most part.
    An interesting idea, though I think yeu've simplified things too much.

    An E would focus on a larger group of characters who were nearly equally developed and the focus would move around.
    An I would focus mostly on one or a few characters who would have stronger development than the subcharacters.
    Not necessarily; keep in mind that "E" doesn't necessitate "lots of people", nor does I imply "very few close friends". The only difference between them, really, is the method by which their thought process occurs; an E thinks through explaining themselves to others - for example, discussion or debate allow their ideas to bloom better as the mere act of externalizing an idea will give them greater clarity into it, and they can come into epiphanies during the act of explaining even if the other side isn't listening. An I, on the other hand, will tend to internalize their thought process, thinking things through to themselves and then checking with others for validation AFTER they've already reasoned out an idea.

    This has nothing to do with the number of characters involved; if anything, it would likely actually be the reverse of whot yeu have listed. An I would be more likely to develop many characters on their own and end up with far too many that don't have as much meaning, as they're unlikely to check with anyone else until it's too late to remove them without rewriting half the story. An E would be more likely to provide fewer characters based off of close friends, and build those characters with outside input, developing them more deeply.




    An S would put a lot of detail into the environment and situation and would be more action oriented.
    An N would place emphasis on puzzles and riddles, internal thought and abstract forms of storytelling.
    Likely true to some degree, but keep in mind that actions and environment can be the puzzles themselves; many writers that rely on puzzles and riddles will often leave clues and hints that would be picked up by an S more likely than an N.

    A very strong S, however, would be more likely to go all tolkien on us and go into obscene detail over nothing, giving exacting information on stuff that really isn't relevant to the story at all. A strong N, on the other hand, is more likely to wander off on tangents and substories, but is more likely to tie those sub-quests into the main storyline somehow.




    An F would emphasize the characters emotions and would be more likely to write about relationships and romance.
    A T would emphasize on the plot and include be more likely to write about mystery or science fiction.
    Not neccesarily true at all; the genre of story is not related in the way yeu'd expect. Check out say... Star Trek Voyager... it was pretty much written by F's, despite being science fiction. The whole thing was one big soap opera in space; the sci-fi aspect just happened to be a vehicle for the characters' relationships is all.

    Yeu also assume the only things available are those few genres, which's a bit silly at best.

    More likely, the F wouldn't specifically rely on romance so much, but they would be far more likely to try to make sure the reader understood the character's perspective and feelings, to emphasize why they do things the way they do. Most likely, first person perspective, or a gods' eye view where yeu can hear the character's thoughts is likely to be an F's writing style.

    A T, would be more likely to describe things through the environment and explain things as to how they occurred, less so than why. While it's very possible for a T to have romance in their novel or story, they would be more focused upon the actions, rather than the emotions usually. This is where yeu'd get a character that shows their love through doing something, rather than just saying it or thinking it.



    A P would have a more open and expansive plotline that leaves many plot points open and unresolved.
    A J would have a more restricted and linear plot where all the plot points are resolved and there are few questions remaining at the end.
    From personal experience, this's not the case at all. In fact, it has no accuracy or even relevance.

    The P wouldn't neccesarily have open and expansive plotlines, moreso they'd be like RL Stine, where they just write off the top of their head, with limited preparation; their characters would have a life of their own and write themselves.

    The J would tend to have detailed notes and have things planned out far in advance of actually writing the story itself. This actually tends to lead to more complex plotlines, rather than whot yeu'd suggested. The J will have better knowledge of the start, middle, and end, and whot they want to happen at each stage along the way, which also means they can set up 'surprises' to occur later on but be hinted at early in the storyline.

    The P, however, will tend to have far more natural characters, that feel more alive and less like they're being forced into acting a pre-defined role; J writers have a bad habit of making a plotline and forcing characters to do whot's required by their plotline regardless of whether it makes sense for that character to do so or not. The P's are more likely to have character development and characters that practically think for themselves, and act consistently, but are unlikely to have structured, complex storylines for those characters to enact.




    So do youo think these are accurate? Also, what do you think would be different between writing styles of different types?
    Uhm... just said that XD




    But yeah, there's alot more than just MBTI type at work as well. Inspiration comes from many sources, and characters themselves and the location/theme of a story can play a very large part in its' telling, and those characters need not be directly related to MBTI type. Once one is aware of their drawbacks of their type, they're more likely to avoid certain pitfalls.

    I'm a strong P, but have since learned to plan out my writing a bit in advance, with basic plotpoints and things I want to occur, with a bit of structure, which allows more detailed plotlines to occur; J's are far more naturally adept at this, but P's do a better job with the characters feeling more natural, so everyone has their flaws, and their bonuses when writing... the trick is to learn to take advantage of the benefits yeu have to writing which come naturally to yeu, and then consciously work on the areas yeu're lacking on.

    Truly great writers have practiced hard to even themselves out, so that they have very few weak points.

    Novice writers will tend to make very poor mistakes, regardless of type, but the mistakes they make will likely be influenced by the type they are.

    There's alot more to this writing thing than just the basics yeu suggested ^^

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Not necessarily; keep in mind that "E" doesn't necessitate "lots of people", nor does I imply "very few close friends". The only difference between them, really, is the method by which their thought process occurs; an E thinks through explaining themselves to others - for example, discussion or debate allow their ideas to bloom better as the mere act of externalizing an idea will give them greater clarity into it, and they can come into epiphanies during the act of explaining even if the other side isn't listening. An I, on the other hand, will tend to internalize their thought process, thinking things through to themselves and then checking with others for validation AFTER they've already reasoned out an idea.

    This has nothing to do with the number of characters involved; if anything, it would likely actually be the reverse of whot yeu have listed. An I would be more likely to develop many characters on their own and end up with far too many that don't have as much meaning, as they're unlikely to check with anyone else until it's too late to remove them without rewriting half the story. An E would be more likely to provide fewer characters based off of close friends, and build those characters with outside input, developing them more deeply.
    Well I cann't really speak for extroverts, but I put most of my focus on my central mains, and they have a lot of depth. My sides are rarely 1 dimensional but also rarely 3-dimensional.


    Not neccesarily true at all; the genre of story is not related in the way yeu'd expect. Check out say... Star Trek Voyager... it was pretty much written by F's, despite being science fiction. The whole thing was one big soap opera in space; the sci-fi aspect just happened to be a vehicle for the characters' relationships is all.

    Yeu also assume the only things available are those few genres, which's a bit silly at best.
    Well I wasn't really saying those were the ONLY genres. I was just mentioning what I thought was likely. Also, when I said science fiction, I was sorta thinking SCIENCE BASED fiction rather than fiction with a backdrop and science. You know because it's all logical and technical. It's kinda like how Twilight is not really fantasy, but rather crap with a fantasy backdrop.

    More likely, the F wouldn't specifically rely on romance so much, but they would be far more likely to try to make sure the reader understood the character's perspective and feelings, to emphasize why they do things the way they do. Most likely, first person perspective, or a gods' eye view where yeu can hear the character's thoughts is likely to be an F's writing style.

    A T, would be more likely to describe things through the environment and explain things as to how they occurred, less so than why. While it's very possible for a T to have romance in their novel or story, they would be more focused upon the actions, rather than the emotions usually. This is where yeu'd get a character that shows their love through doing something, rather than just saying it or thinking it.

    I can kinda see that, though I'm a T and I ALWAYS go deep into the psychology and emotions of my characters. Maybe it's just because psychology interests me. Dunno.

    The P wouldn't neccesarily have open and expansive plotlines, moreso they'd be like RL Stine, where they just write off the top of their head, with limited preparation; their characters would have a life of their own and write themselves.

    The J would tend to have detailed notes and have things planned out far in advance of actually writing the story itself. This actually tends to lead to more complex plotlines, rather than whot yeu'd suggested. The J will have better knowledge of the start, middle, and end, and whot they want to happen at each stage along the way, which also means they can set up 'surprises' to occur later on but be hinted at early in the storyline.

    The P, however, will tend to have far more natural characters, that feel more alive and less like they're being forced into acting a pre-defined role; J writers have a bad habit of making a plotline and forcing characters to do whot's required by their plotline regardless of whether it makes sense for that character to do so or not. The P's are more likely to have character development and characters that practically think for themselves, and act consistently, but are unlikely to have structured, complex storylines for those characters to enact.
    That does make sense, but I would imagine the lack of planning would probably cause the P to get out of control with the writing, so it would expand more. Also, because the J planned, they will already have a way to conclude plot points when they write, so it won't leave anything inconclusive.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    many, many authors transcend these boundaries. but it's still kind of cool.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  10. #20
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    OP: That's an interesting distinction that you made between I and E. I've never gotten around to writing it, but FWIW, I've had somewhat of a "children's story" idea floating in my head that had dozens of characters... yet, it was mostly centered on only two or three of the them. Not sure if it's just me, or I'm merely taking a queue from the type of genres that influenced the story (lots of fantasy, shonen anime, and space opera is written this way).

    Not sure about F/T. I think I may be F at times, but I would write more like a T, according to you.

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI and flirting style
    By Cality in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 10-09-2015, 05:37 PM
  2. MBTI and westernization of ME
    By SepidGol in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-26-2014, 11:58 PM
  3. [Other] MBTI and Game of Thrones
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2014, 10:13 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-31-2008, 02:47 PM
  5. Originators of MBTI and Temperaments
    By marm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 02:34 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