User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 251

  1. #51
    Temporal Mechanic. Lexicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    JINX
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    Oh hooray, it's another one of those pseudo-intellectual piss contest threads.
    03/23 06:06:58 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:06:59 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:21:34 Nancynobullets: LEXXX *sacrifices a first born*
    03/23 06:21:53 Nancynobullets: We summon yooouuu
    03/23 06:29:07 Lexicon: I was sleeping!



    04/25 04:20:35 Patches: Don't listen to lex. She wants to birth a litter of kittens. She doesnt get to decide whats creepy

    02/16 23:49:38 ygolo: Lex is afk
    02/16 23:49:45 Cimarron: she's doing drugs with Jack

    03/05 19:27:41 Time: You can't make chat morbid. Lex does it naturally.

  2. #52
    Temporal Mechanic. Lexicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    JINX
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    duplicate post [it won't let me delete, for some reason]

    cleanup on aisle ..52?
    Last edited by Lexicon; 06-04-2012 at 01:37 AM. Reason: internet hates me
    03/23 06:06:58 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:06:59 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:21:34 Nancynobullets: LEXXX *sacrifices a first born*
    03/23 06:21:53 Nancynobullets: We summon yooouuu
    03/23 06:29:07 Lexicon: I was sleeping!



    04/25 04:20:35 Patches: Don't listen to lex. She wants to birth a litter of kittens. She doesnt get to decide whats creepy

    02/16 23:49:38 ygolo: Lex is afk
    02/16 23:49:45 Cimarron: she's doing drugs with Jack

    03/05 19:27:41 Time: You can't make chat morbid. Lex does it naturally.

  3. #53
    Temporal Mechanic. Lexicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    JINX
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    Hit "edit," then you'll see multiple delete buttons in different text boxes. Click them all.
    I'd tried that; it didn't work.
    03/23 06:06:58 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:06:59 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:21:34 Nancynobullets: LEXXX *sacrifices a first born*
    03/23 06:21:53 Nancynobullets: We summon yooouuu
    03/23 06:29:07 Lexicon: I was sleeping!



    04/25 04:20:35 Patches: Don't listen to lex. She wants to birth a litter of kittens. She doesnt get to decide whats creepy

    02/16 23:49:38 ygolo: Lex is afk
    02/16 23:49:45 Cimarron: she's doing drugs with Jack

    03/05 19:27:41 Time: You can't make chat morbid. Lex does it naturally.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    I spend a little while trying to put my thoughts together on this issue, only to realize that I was going around in circles, and that the answer can be phrased so much more simply.

    If there's one thing that the MBTI teaches, it's that everyone has their innate strengths that are equally valuable in the world. The cliched Einstein quote comes to mind: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

    Therefore, everyone who says that they correlate intelligence with the MBTI is doing so in a subjective and biased way. They are deciding that one form of intelligence is more important than the others, and 99% of the time they are deciding that based on which types of intelligence they value the most, which, more often than not, are the types of intelligence they take the most pride in possessing. (Example: those who say that "intelligence" best correlates with their own MBTI type.)

    This is not political correctness. This is an attempt at objectivity.


    Edit: I see that @slayerment himself is reading this thread. Let the games begin!
    I agree. But most people will inherently consider certain types of measurements for intelligence as more useful than others. Whoever smokes the most pot is probably a worse measurement than whoever creates the most profitable company. Whoever watches the most TV is probably a worse measurement than whoever helps the most people. Almost all people of all MBTIs will agree to this.

    So with an understanding that there are better measurements for intelligence, smarter or whatever else you want to call it, we can start to hone in and create a useful definition for everyone. Yes it is subjective, but not entirely. Yes, it may not be a perfect definition, but it will at least be meaningful -- more meaningful than simply saying, "oh well there's no such thing." That is all I have attempted to do. I am taking people that everyone sees as great people and that everyone strives to become (with the exception of a few). Yes, I know it's not the best model, but it is most likely better than IQ and most other measurements that are commonly used. Sheer technical ability like number crunching, which many S's can excel at, is not the best way to view things. We can create robots that can do that. We want to define intelligence in a way outside of robots. We want to define intelligence along the lines of creativity -- something that creates value and meaning towards others and life. We want to define intelligence as something that creates value where most other people fall short.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haven View Post
    Clearly reality favors sensors. Intuitives only have an imaginary sense of superiority they flaunt constantly on the internet. Don't take that away from them.
    Substantiate this.

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IceBlock View Post
    God, what an awful article. Really, I even feel sad with people like him being a fellow N.

    I'm saying they're not smart - This is a ridiculous generalization. Sensors are not smart? I know a bunch of stupid iNtuitives: people who can't deal with basic daily stuff; people who accurately can explain how a neuron works, but can't do anything in sudden emergency situations.
    S's may be good at entertaining you or making you laugh - So, iNtuitives don't have this ability? Not even the super charismatic ENFJs can entertain you? Not all sensors are entertainers or funny people. iNtuitives may have more leadership skills (specifically NTs), but this article was written in a way that makes any newbie at MBTI be disgusted with Sensors.
    The whole article is a generalization. Clearly there are exceptions for everything.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    [...] action is all that matters in this world
    NTs are the most likely to take action. They are the most Choleric.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    Fast considerations:
    - You can't measure the IQ of a person that lived 500 years ago. That's insanity. Not even their mbti type can be properly known, but that's another story.
    - Having a high IQ doesn't make you smart. You can have a big IQ and suck in life big time. Besides, a high IQ is often correlated with some bad stuff (poor grasp of social norms, depression, big ego).
    Fair points. MBTI is probably easier to know than IQ of people who are dead. I may not know exactly what Thomas Jefferson is but I can get a pretty good idea based off of his preferences and character. I can take somebody today and without knowing their MBTI measure them the same way I would somebody like Thomas Jefferson who is dead. One is alive, one is dead, but I would be measuring them the same exact way. I could then verify that the person who is alive is what I typed them as based off of my analysis. So it is possible, it may not be the best way, but there is still something to gain from it and there is still some accuracy in doing so. We know Thomas Jefferson is closer to an INTJ than ESFP. We know Einstein is closer to INTP than ESFJ.

    Moreover, I agree people with high IQs can suck in life big time. That is why I am using people who didn't suck big time in life as the measurement.

  9. #59
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slayerment View Post
    I agree. But most people will inherently consider certain types of measurements for intelligence as more useful than others. Whoever smokes the most pot is probably a worse measurement than whoever creates the most profitable company. Whoever watches the most TV is probably a worse measurement than whoever helps the most people. Almost all people of all MBTIs will agree to this.

    So with an understanding that there are better measurements for intelligence, smarter or whatever else you want to call it, we can start to hone in and create a useful definition for everyone. Yes it is subjective, but not entirely. Yes, it may not be a perfect definition, but it will at least be meaningful -- more meaningful than simply saying, "oh well there's no such thing." That is all I have attempted to do. I am taking people that everyone sees as great people and that everyone strives to become (with the exception of a few). Yes, I know it's not the best model, but it is most likely better than IQ and most other measurements that are commonly used. Sheer technical ability like number crunching, which many S's can excel at, is not the best way to view things. We can create robots that can do that. We want to define intelligence in a way outside of robots. We want to define intelligence along the lines of creativity -- something that creates value and meaning towards others and life. We want to define intelligence as something that creates value where most other people fall short.
    Ah yes! That sounds very lovely, in theory. (except for the bolded, which is extremely stereotypical. and I digress!)

    I was mostly responding to the thread in general, and not just your article. But I might as well respond to your article in more detail.

    Here's my opinion: Your methodology is seriously lacking.

    Firstly, you quote Wikipedia, which is a mistake. (If you want credibility, please cite someone with credibility. And don't cite internet sources; those are generally written by Ns and therefore extremely biased. Consider the the juxtaposition of the INFJ stereotype (intuitive to the point of being psychic, bearer of "magical" abilities at reading people), and the ISTP stereotype (they're great at car repair!). If you think critically, you'll realize that these sorts of things sound sketchy.

    Secondly, saying "Here's all the great people in the world; see how few are Sensors?" is also a really bad idea. It's too broad, which means you've been picking and choosing people to include or reject from your list -- which means you've probably been unscientific and very subjective, and have no credibility whatsoever. How can we know who you decided to reject? How do we know that you didn't find a huge list of Sensors who changed the world? I'd vote that you, at the very least, define intelligence in your article, then make a list of people in a certain profession directly linked to that sort of intelligence, and then type them. Even then, I'd object to your article, but that would make it less silly and easy for people like me and @bologna and @Zarathustra to dismiss.

    Thirdly -- and I don't know if I have to explain this to you or not -- celebrity typing is a contentious thing. I'm guessing someone could make a Sensor argument for at least half of the people you included on that list. Also, few, if any, of us have met those people, let alone read a biography of them. And I'm not going to trust your typing unless you give me exactly why you typed them that way -- and I'm not going to trust your explanations unless they involve, at the very least, several interviews with the person, and a History Channel special.

    Fourthly, cite your freaking sources. Where did you find those IQs?

    And finally (because, even though I could go on and on, I choose not to), being "smart" and being "intelligent" are not the same thing. You know this. The title of your article implies that you don't, which takes away even more of your credibility.

    In short: if you want people to take your ideas seriously, start acting like a scholar, and not like some random blogger who just discovered MBTI a week ago and is making vague generalizations based only on Wikipedia and the Keirsey website. Because, honestly, that's the vibe I'm getting.


    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by slayerment View Post
    The whole article is a generalization. Clearly there are exceptions for everything.
    Then say it in your freaking article. You state everything in it as if you take it as inarguable fact. You use fucking charts and graphs. It's why no one is taking you seriously here.

    If people thought you knew that it was all a generalization, and that you were knowingly exaggerating and speaking unscientifically, they would be treating you differently.

    Another edit:
    I just realized that yes, you do kinda-sorta define intelligence in your article. But your list is still far, far too broad, and those same issues apply.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  10. #60
    Certified Sausage Smoker Elfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLI None
    Posts
    9,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slayerment View Post
    NTs are the most likely to take action. They are the most Choleric.
    ....no, no they aren't. ENTJs are, sometimes INTJs can be pretty choleric too, but NTs as a whole? no. there isn't a large degree of correlation with 4 humors and MBTI anyway (assuming 4 humors held any weight, which I don't think they do). anyway, the most action oriented types are probably Se doms and Te doms (ESxPs and ExTJs)
    ENFP: We put the Fi in Fire
    ENFP
    5w4>1w9>2w1 Sx/Sp
    SEE-Fi
    Papa Bear
    Motivation: Dark Worker
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Chibi Seme
    MTG Color: black/red
    Male Archtype: King/Lover
    Sunburst!
    "You are a gay version of Gambit" Speed Gavroche
    "I wish that I could be affected by any hate, but I can't, cuz I just get affected by the bank" Chamillionaire

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