User Tag List

First 4121314

Results 131 to 138 of 138

  1. #131
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrystalViolet View Post
    I think it's a fair assumption reading this entire thread that the majority of people have only taken online tests. And top marks for misintrepretation....I said people would be dissappointed when they took the official version.
    There was no elitist agenda. Just a statment, of which I should have quite obviously justified, clarified, and defined, so no-one would jump to conclusions.
    Eh, I didn't say you had an "elitist agenda," whatever that means (did you think I was suggesting you were elitist because you'd taken the "official" test?) I simply thought you meant that people would be disappointed with their test results because they'd be more accurate, and would perhaps show a lot of the self-typed (or internet-test-typed) intuitives to actually be sensors (you know, in the spirit of this thread.) In which case, I felt the need to point out that the official tests suck ass. But hey, it's all the better if we are actually in agreement.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #132
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Eh, I didn't say you had an "elitist agenda," whatever that means (did you think I was suggesting you were elitist because you'd taken the "official" test?) I simply thought you meant that people would be disappointed with their test results because they'd be more accurate, and would perhaps show a lot of the self-typed (or internet-test-typed) intuitives to actually be sensors (you know, in the spirit of this thread.) In which case, I felt the need to point out that the official tests suck ass. But hey, it's all the better if we are actually in agreement.
    I'm guilty of misintrepretation too. I DO actually agree with you.
    One of the most useful things I found, was a website that had all the types written in the typical voice of each individual type. I really wish I could find it again to post here. It's what decided me once and for all....because it wasn't the usual run of the mill fluffy INFP description, it was a good intrepretation of thought processes.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #133
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Do you mean Linda Berens book? link. The descriptions are based off of interviews.

  4. #134
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Uh, for what it's worth, I was just asking what you meant by sensory, just to see if it was like me. I didn't mean anything by it or was offended about anything.

    I'm questioning the idea of intuitive not being able to physically function like you are. Jung never wrote about it that way, but even if he did, I'd still question it. The reason why is that I have eyeballs, fingers, toes, bones, muscles.. the whole works. There is no cognitive/MBTI reason why I wouldn't use them. I am a human being. Not some monstrosity.. like one of those chickens that are bred to be nothing but Long John Silver planks and Mcdonald's chicken mcnuggets.. I can imagine they're probably little blobs of boneless chicken husks. Now THERE's a chicken that probably can't do much physically. And I'm not the human equivalent. Being NF or NT doesn't automatically doesn't put you in some useless category like this.
    I wasn't talking about the physicality of it.....No function works in isolation. I skipped that assumption. The intuitive functions inevitably have a sensor function tied in with them. I was really talking about people who have quite disconcordant thought proccesses with the rest of society. Like the people who stay in doors all the time reading conspiracy theories and making crazy connections. That sort of thing. I really don't know what the sensor version of that would be....?going bush, and living day to day? It's not my intention to perpetuate stereotypes though. People really aren't that cut and dried.
    You have me completely wrong, if you think I claim NF's and NT's are completely useless....considering I'm firmly in the intuitive camp and I function well enough to hold down a job, pay my bills, keep a roof over my head. I wasn't painting things with a broad bush stroke.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  5. #135
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Umm.. I was never addressing you or accusing you of being wrong about NTs or NFs. I know you are intuitive. It's not necessary to get defensive. Here I am thinking I was on the same wavelength, yet you're convinced I'm attacking you somehow. Either I didn't word something correctly or you're not reading. Lets start over =) None of my musings had anything to do with you.. I was addressing the idea "in general" about people who thought intuitives couldn't be physically active. I'm making a big joke out of those kind of statements, and... to reiterate, they had nothing to do with thinking you were saying that.

  6. #136
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ReflecttcelfeR View Post
    I would say anyone who enjoys solving the unknown can be rightly dubbed an intuitive. Which would mean that bein intuitive is in itself fluid and some people frequent that urge more than others. Making them more "intuitive" and thus receiving the N. I am starting to dislike talk about rarity, because it inevitably leads to an argument on intelligence which has nothing to do with type theory.
    I know that belief doesn't count for much, but I just don't believe in the rarity thing at all. I think I mentioned somewhere in here that socionics theory is appealing to me for this. It's all based on intertype relations, where it's inevitable that people interact with their duals. Assuming this is true, then one cannot follow the idea that some types are ultra-rare. If they were, then they are basically screwed, along with anyone who is compatible with them. Screwed because they wouldn't be able to meet very often. I think it's possible that types have an equal enough ratio, and that they do get to interact enough with compatible types - and not only that, but that since there would be a high number of each type, then it would mean that there are probably both highly intelligent and.. not-so-intelligent people in each type. INTJs, for example, who are still using Ni and Te, but aren't particularly remarkable (IQ wise). INFPs who aren't Chopin, etc.. This puts a little more responsibility back on the individual.

  7. #137
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    I was actually recalling that while I was typing that up. I can't really add to what you said, but I agree.

  8. #138
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Finally read Jung. Feel like a moron for not doing so sooner. If I were a teacher I would assign it to everyone on the forum. We could erase the filled chalkboard that is this place and start all over. The reason no one can ever figure anything out on here is the constant streams of misinterpretation. MBTI got Jung wrong. The whole typology madness is like a big game of telephone that's been going on for years.

    Calling groups of people "sensors" and "intuitives" is silly, first off. (If you must, confine it to those who are ESPs, ENPS, ISJs, and INJs, at the very least.) And then you have the fact that anyone who is an introvert tends toward abstraction, because whatever concrete matters they are dealing with they view subjectively. This can lead to lots of introverts considering themselves "intuitives".

    Just because you are an introverted or extroverted thinker, this doesn't make you insensitive or a jerk.
    Just because you are an extroverted or introverted feeler, this doesn't make you nice or illogical.
    Just because you are an extroverted or introverted sensor, this doesn't make you confined to reality as is or was.
    Just because you are an introverted or extroverted intuitive, this doesn't make you brilliant and all-seeing.

    I don't mean to imply that I am all-knowing by saying these things. I'm sure there are people on here who know way way more about this than I do. There's just so much misinformation out there/on here that it leads to constantly hamster-wheeling brains. That for sure is what mine's been doing for quite a while now.

Similar Threads

  1. Can this be the reason why Ns think that sensors are "stupid" ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 03-10-2015, 05:02 PM
  2. How is it that some people are Sensors and others Intuitives?
    By trickyleg in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 04:03 PM
  3. What are the most sought after personality types? and the ones you detest...
    By curiousel in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 10:06 AM
  4. Why do you think that you are misunderstood ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-08-2009, 01:41 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