User Tag List

First 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 251

  1. #111
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    Ehm, apparently we didn't read the same thread. The Great One never said sensors were stupid. He called RaptorWizard a "sensing ass" for completely misunderstanding something he had said in an exchange instead of taking it for a metaphor. RW then misunderstood that as well and understood it to mean "you stupid sensor" (i.e. "you're stupid for being a sensor because sensors per se are stupid"). So that and the ridiculous website quoted inspired him to start this thread in protest. The Great One apperared and explained the misunderstanding. Everything peachy.

    So I guess your calling him an ass and dedicating an entire post to how stupid and unlikable he is has reasons that go beyond this thread and have nothing to do with the topic at hand?



    EDIT: By the way, I'm glad to see everybody is exchanging views in such a friendly, dignified and mature manner,,,it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside!
    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    What about hybrids btw. ? I mean we always assume that there are only S or N types, but regarding T and F we say that being borderline is possible. So how about someone who climbs Mount Everest and solves a 4th order polynom while climbing ?
    I seem to be a hybrid (ENxP). I use both Fi and Ti well, and some Fe as well.

  2. #112
    Senior Member Chaotic Harmony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Oddly enough... My biggest problem with him is him discrediting what others thought to be an influential person just because they weren't well known.... Influential is defined as the ability to have a powerful effect on people and what they do, or on events. Some of the people he listed I'm not even sure who they are or perhaps it's that I never really care about what they did. So, by that token to me they weren't all that influential... It's hard for me to explain, because to be honest, reading this entire thread left me kind of numb and with a headache.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is... Just because I think someone is influential doesn't mean everyone is going to... So by his logic in the blog... Influential = Smarter than Others = Ns.... So... If I think people like Nikki Sixx, Paul McCartney, and Jimi Hendrix are all influential...then they are all smarter than others....therefore they are all Ns... I just have a hard time following that kind of logic. (I don't know any of their types, I was just throwing out some names)


  3. #113
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    I havent said that solving a problem or mathboy in my example means being intelligent. I mean people who are good at math are most often not intelligent, that, one can always be sure of.

    I was more talking about beating the odds. I mean a stone thrown in the air, will fall to the ground if no opposing force is instilled. Thats a natural law. But that someone climbing a rock wouldnt solve a math equation because he is concentrated on climbing is no law. Cause its possible to beat that law. Same applies for Jungs types; they are no natural law, cause its always possible to beat them, if one just tries hard enough.

    And here comes a problem. I remember reading sports interviews with racers, soccer players and mountain climbers. They were asked what they are thinking of when they achieve their highest performances. Most of them answer "Nothing, they aint thinking, they act on impulses, instincts and intuition." Some tho said, like Michael Schumacher, he sometimes is thinking, while racing about trivial things; like a grocery list or painting the house.

    This phaenomenon is not too uncommon and it is a way of a prescindend thinking in the moment. That would be perfectly alignable with Jungs functions, cause it would roughly, in a 1st analysis, define the Se function as a form of action that requires no thinking. it would tho at the same hand define thinking as a function that requires no action. Therefore the two wouldnt need to be connected and you can basically have someone, achieving high Se performances, but thinking nothing... and getting bored because of that and to start thinking.

    Thinking would herein describe the sole process, not the mbti function.

    If you ponder about that, I wonder how many "men and woman of action" as in S people, had brilliant N insights while rubbing their balls. (figuratively spoken)
    Though you assume here that Se thought is somehow less "captivating" than Ne thought, or Ti thought. This also assumes that Se is almost completely a physical function, not requiring engagement of higher thought... as if there is some mental "space" that can be filled while engaging Se. Theoretically, then, this should be a capability for all other types, too - but we wouldn't think of Einstein being likely to suddenly master a complex dance move while working on advanced physics equations.

    On the other hand, there is some merit to all of us having subconscious realizations pop into the conscious while we are engaged in "flow" states.

  4. #114
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    I FOR ONE AM VERY GRATEFUL THAT SO MANY S TYPES HAVE OFFERED TO BAKE ME CUPCAKES VIA REPS OR HAVE TOLD MNE THAT THEY JUST MADE CUPCAKES RECENTLY. IT IS SO AWESOME BECAUSE I HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS TO KNOW THAT I KNOW ALL AND EVERYTHING IS AMAZING YES YES YES.

    POOR S TYPES. YOU ARE FODDER FOR US N;S AND YOU SHALL FEED US WITH THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW AND THE BLOOD OF YOUR HANDS AS YOU TOIL IN THE SALT MINES OF ROME.

  5. #115
    Professional Trickster Esoteric Wench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    I FOR ONE AM VERY GRATEFUL THAT SO MANY S TYPES HAVE OFFERED TO BAKE ME CUPCAKES VIA REPS OR HAVE TOLD MNE THAT THEY JUST MADE CUPCAKES RECENTLY. IT IS SO AWESOME BECAUSE I HAVE CONFIRMATION BIAS TO KNOW THAT I KNOW ALL AND EVERYTHING IS AMAZING YES YES YES.

    POOR S TYPES. YOU ARE FODDER FOR US N;S AND YOU SHALL FEED US WITH THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW AND THE BLOOD OF YOUR HANDS AS YOU TOIL IN THE SALT MINES OF ROME.
    I laughed soooo hard when I read this.
    ENFP with kick*ss Te | 7w8 so | ♀

  6. #116
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Though you assume here that Se thought is somehow less "captivating" than Ne thought, or Ti thought. This also assumes that Se is almost completely a physical function, not requiring engagement of higher thought... as if there is some mental "space" that can be filled while engaging Se. Theoretically, then, this should be a capability for all other types, too - but we wouldn't think of Einstein being likely to suddenly master a complex dance move while working on advanced physics equations.

    On the other hand, there is some merit to all of us having subconscious realizations pop into the conscious while we are engaged in "flow" states.
    the intresting question really is, how can we imagine N and S at all. per definition both are ways to perceive the world, therefore you couldnt really relate them to any kind of actuation at all, they are more like sensors in a machine. that definition for me personally makes the most sense. and if n and s arent directly necessary for actuation you couldnt ever really make a statement about who would be the bigger achiever in any kind of field.

    tho i have been thinking out aloud again, i think my conclusion on this would be that jungian type definitions aint sufficient to describe how and in how many various ways humans perceive the world and what they make of that latter. i agree with you that reducing S to some kind of instinctual component free of higher thought definitly is wrong
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #117
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Esoteric Wench View Post
    I laughed soooo hard when I read this.
    Is that so? That salt really does your hands in. It's nothing to laugh about.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  8. #118
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    N;S
    I spot a typographical mistake. Where's my Sensing badge?

  9. #119
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    the intresting question really is, how can we imagine N and S at all. per definition both are ways to perceive the world, therefore you couldnt really relate them to any kind of actuation at all, they are more like sensors in a machine. that definition for me personally makes the most sense. and if n and s arent directly necessary for actuation you couldnt ever really make a statement about who would be the bigger achiever in any kind of field.
    Very true.

    tho i have been thinking out aloud again, i think my conclusion on this would be that jungian type definitions aint sufficient to describe how and in how many various ways humans perceive the world and what they make of that latter.
    I am reaching this conclusion more and more myself lately. Sad, almost. All of this time devoted to studying this framework only to discover the ultimate truth of reality being more vast and more splendid than a theoretical system can keep up with.

    Truth is, the N POV might be useful in speedy transcendence of situations and therefore major overturns, but the S POV may possess more final wisdom in terms of actually being connected to the life that we are experiencing. We tend to think that N helps us reach faster conclusions but are those conclusions always aligned with actuality? No, no...

    The MBTI itself may be a case in point...

  10. #120
    Señora Member Elfa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    http://www.slayerment.com/blog/ns-are-smarter-ss-mbti

    According to the above website, intuitive people are more intelligent than sensing people (like myself.) I also just got told by @The Great One that I am a sensing ass because I took something he said literally. I am tired of intuitives lording their higher positions in the social intellectual heirarchy and their supreme minds over us sensors!
    An interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Similar Threads

  1. How Animals are Smarter than Some Humans
    By Mal12345 in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-06-2013, 02:37 PM
  2. [NT] People who are smarter than you
    By animenagai in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 08-25-2012, 11:03 PM
  3. Replies: 91
    Last Post: 01-23-2011, 07:49 PM
  4. How many Ns are in general population ?
    By Chloe in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 09-14-2009, 01:54 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Why Fs are smarter than Ts
    By Martian Manifesto in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 10-12-2008, 11:49 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