User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 251

  1. #61
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slayerment View Post
    Substantiate this.
    I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm.
    ~ 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!

  2. #62
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    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).
    You just don't want to accept that jesus was an iq 180 transcendent esfj because it means you're going to hell
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  3. #63
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    You just don't want to accept that jesus was an iq 180 transcendent esfj because it means you're going to hell
    I could TOTALLY see Jesus as ESFJ!

    Talk about an influential person. Seriously!
    ~ 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!
    Likes Cygnus liked this post

  4. #64
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    [...]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.
    Yeah, the article at that website comes off as another iNtuitive masterpiece by another ditzy, schizy, whiny, N dilettante.

    I sometimes wonder what Ss think about the iNtuitive discussions that take place here on MBTI-Central. There's a lot of whacked-out, dimwitted iNtuitive theorizing about how nice it would be to kill off big portions of the population, get rid of organized religion, get rid of the corporations, etc. As the real-world "adults" of the MBTI spectrum, Sensors probably aren't going to have much to say in such discussions. And even when discussions are more down-to-earth and results-oriented, Ns frequently discount any first-person experience as anecdotal, a mere snapshot of a point in time having no bearing on future trends. So you get a big disconnect between the Ss with their excellent powers of observation and first-hand experience of the world vs. the Ns who deal in overviews and theories and only want to discuss broad trends and future developments.

    Ns brainstorm and fantasize about how nice it would be to get rid of all cars in order to reduce the greenhouse effect. Meantime Ss are laughing at the Ns and shaking their heads, because the Ss just finished a shift working as part of a team of cops and paramedics untangling a high-speed six-car pile-up on the highway. It's all fine and dandy to brainstorm about life 50 years from now, but in the meantime someone needs to have a Sensor's mastery of observation, detail, and procedure and the presence of mind to handle the real-life emergencies happening on the roads right now.

    Ns bitch and moan about globalization issues or the white-collar rat race or the paper chase in bureaucracies. Meanwhile, S admin and management specialists laugh at the dilettante Ns who have no idea what they're talking about. The S specialists have read through thousands of pages of corporate directives, administered pension funds, granted education allowances for dependents, worked up merit allocation coefficients for pay increases for employees, sat on grievance tribunals for disgruntled workers, audited budgets for departments, etc. They know the corporations aren't going to disappear anytime soon, and they know why.

    MBTI stereotypes cut both ways. Ns tend to see themselves as visionaries and they see Ss as dreary, unimaginative, fussy drudges. But in my experience Ss tend to see themselves as responsible, clear-eyed, sensible adults and they see Ns as oblivious, whiny, teenaged dilettantes.

  5. #65
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    guys, there is not one type of intelligence. i read somewhere there are 5, but maybe even more, depending on how you look.
    N's and S's have different types of intelligence according to how you look. for how i look, i'd say N's are more intelligent, but only because it's the sort of intelligence i identify with and value. apart from that, this discussion will go nowhere, i assure you. it all balances out.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EJCC View Post
    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:

    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.
    You can attack anything anybody does. You could write the best article in the world and I could poke holes in it. So I'm not trying to write a perfect article. I am trying to bring information forth and give people a new perspective on the MBTI. You're focusing too much on minor details. I could easily cite my sources. I could easily use definitions outside of Wikipedia -- that's all minor. If I do a source to your satisfaction it will be to another person's dissatisfaction.

    I define what I mean by smart when I say,

    "I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason."

    Again, you're getting tripped up on minor semantics for the sake of disagreeing. No matter what I do or what source I use I will most likely never satisfy you.

    And I'm not trying to be scholarly, I'm trying to be educational. I don't respect most scholars or the way the SJ school system treats academics or intelligence.

  7. #67
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FineLine View Post
    Yeah, the article at that website comes off as another iNtuitive masterpiece by another ditzy, schizy, whiny, N dilettante.

    I sometimes wonder what Ss think about the iNtuitive discussions that take place here on MBTI-Central. There's a lot of whacked-out, dimwitted iNtuitive theorizing about how nice it would be to kill off big portions of the population, get rid of organized religion, get rid of the corporations, etc. As the real-world "adults" of the MBTI spectrum, Sensors probably aren't going to have much to say in such discussions. And even when discussions are more down-to-earth and results-oriented, Ns frequently discount any first-person experience as anecdotal, a mere snapshot of a point in time having no bearing on future trends. So you get a big disconnect between the Ss with their excellent powers of observation and first-hand experience of the world vs. the Ns who deal in overviews and theories and only want to discuss broad trends and future developments.

    Ns brainstorm and fantasize about how nice it would be to get rid of all cars in order to reduce the greenhouse effect. Meantime Ss are laughing at the Ns and shaking their heads, because the Ss just finished a shift working as part of a team of cops and paramedics untangling a high-speed six-car pile-up on the highway. It's all fine and dandy to brainstorm about life 50 years from now, but in the meantime someone needs to have a Sensor's mastery of observation, detail, and procedure and the presence of mind to handle the real-life emergencies happening on the roads right now.

    Ns bitch and moan about globalization issues or the white-collar rat race or the paper chase in bureaucracies. Meanwhile, S admin and management specialists laugh at the dilettante Ns who have no idea what they're talking about. The S specialists have read through thousands of pages of corporate directives, administered pension funds, granted education allowances for dependents, worked up merit allocation coefficients for pay increases for employees, sat on grievance tribunals for disgruntled workers, audited budgets for departments, etc. They know the corporations aren't going to disappear anytime soon, and they know why.

    MBTI stereotypes cut both ways. Ns tend to see themselves as visionaries and they see Ss as dreary, unimaginative, fussy drudges. But in my experience Ss tend to see themselves as responsible, clear-eyed, sensible adults and they see Ns as oblivious, whiny, teenaged dilettantes.
    These are very good observations -- and that's exactly why it annoys me so much when people treat those huge issues as if they're so simple, and so potentially easy to deal with, when obviously they aren't, if you'd just take the time to do your research. Much of the time when someone proposes a big and vague (but pretty) idea to me, my response will be "And how do you suggest doing that?" And the response will be deafening silence.

    That's also why it annoys me when people say that Sensors can't have the big ideas; I don't know much about how the SP mind works (since I know so few SPs), but with SJs, we're pretty damn well prepared to have those ideas and implement them successfully, just because we've taken the time to find out what's been tried in the past, what worked halfway, and what didn't work at all. It's just a hop and a skip from that point to the point where you come up with a solution that can be implemented in the real world.
    ~ 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!

  8. #68
    FRACTALICIOUS phobik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexicon View Post
    Oh hooray, it's another one of those pseudo-intellectual piss contest threads.
    Yeah completely useless. Every typologist worth his/her [bath] salt knows N piss is superior.
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    ~ Elbert Hubbard

    Music provides one of the clearest examples of a much deeper relation between mathematics and human experience.

  9. #69
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wind-Up Rex View Post
    It doesn't really matter. There are more sensors than there are intuitives. We may be smarter, but we have to play by your rules most of the time in order to be considered "functional". The myth, of course, is that we can't function without you because we're too "pie in the sky".






    In what way?
    You answered your question.

  10. #70
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slayerment View Post
    You can attack anything anybody does. You could write the best article in the world and I could poke holes in it. So I'm not trying to write a perfect article. I am trying to bring information forth and give people a new perspective on the MBTI. You're focusing too much on minor details. I could easily cite my sources. I could easily use definitions outside of Wikipedia -- that's all minor. If I do a source to your satisfaction it will be to another person's dissatisfaction.
    If your work is scholarly, and if your research is sufficient, and if you are very thorough, then the only objections will be those of people who don't think much of the IQ test, or of the MBTI. But as of now, the only people who would agree with your article are people who aren't thinking critically.

    Also: If you care so little about individual people's objections, then why did you start an account here with the express intent of posting on this thread? I would say that you were trying to evangelize your article, but if you were, you would be trying a little harder to convince people, instead of dismissing people's concerns by saying "Your disagreements are minor details that don't matter."
    I define what I mean by smart when I say,

    "I would think that people who are influential are probably smarter than other people. Maybe smarter is not the right word, but whatever they are, others are not. And it is these attributes that make them stand out and admirable. People notice and remember these people more than others. That is why they became influential. These people did something that most people did not do. They are/were influential for a reason."
    Like I said: too vague. Too long a list, that you obviously shortened.
    Again, you're getting tripped up on minor semantics for the sake of disagreeing. No matter what I do or what source I use I will most likely never satisfy you.
    If you know anything about ESTJs, you know that they can be convinced of almost anything if you give them credible data. So no, I'm not objecting to minor details. Credibility of data is not a minor detail. If you think a source written by an amateur (e.g. Wikipedia) is as credible as a source written by someone with years of education and experience and huge amounts of influence around the world (e.g. Jung), then it's no wonder that you've convinced no one of anything in your brief (but entertaining) time on Typology Central.

    If you call a group of people "not smart", in an article you wrote with the intent to "educate", people might take every little detail you say as fact. But obviously you didn't want that. If you really were an ESFJ, then you'd understand the instinct of many people to take others literally in that regard, but you obviously aren't ESFJ. The reason why I keep saying you should try the scholarly way is that it's exact, and it's thorough. If you use that method, you will mean every word you say. You will be avoiding interactions like these. You will be respected.

    But at this point, the only way I'd believe your article would be if I took your word for it, and chose not to question you. Is that what you wanted? Were you writing that article under the impression that no one would question you? On what grounds would anyone respect your article? (Hence my emphasis on credibility.)
    And I'm not trying to be scholarly, I'm trying to be educational. I don't respect most scholars or the way the SJ school system treats academics or intelligence.
    If you ever want to convince anyone of anything, you have to know how to convince them. Trust of other people's logic, knowledge and expertise is not a given, and it must be earned. If you make an argument with very little reputable data, if any, you are going to convince very few people. And those who are "educated" by you will soon find a contradictory argument that is better phrased, with better data, that is more objective, and they will be convinced of another opinion and will no longer agree with you.
    ~ 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!

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