How NOT to do typology

[Aesthete]

Whether a person has a high IQ depends partly on their genetic dispositions and on their level of commitment to cultivating their intellectual faculties. The supposition that INFPs can't have a high IQ postulates that the INFP temperament precludes the individual from having the proper genes or displaying an adequate level of commitment to cultivation of intellectual abilities that lead to the achievement of a high IQ. Although one may argue that the tendency to be in affinity with emotions is a hindrance, it is only a slight hindrance. An emotionally-charged person is entirely capable of learning how to detach from sentiments and how to systematically build intellectual competence: being a Thinking types does not make one intelligent, it only gives one a natural tendency to detach. Hence, both Feelers and Thinkers who strive to become intelligent must systematically work on enhancing their cognitive faculties and both are very much capable of doing so. Furthermore, INFPs may have a variety of non-typological genetic dispositions that empower them to excel at abstract thinking, for example, they may be gifted with a photographic memory, exceptionally fast information processing abilities and so on.

I have one point to disagree on: one need not necessarily be detached to be "intelligent" or have a high IQ. IQ also measures, to some extent, creativity - unless I'm mistaken, and "intelligence" is a very vague form. Beethoven was certainly passionate, but also considered intelligent.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I have one point to disagree on: one need not necessarily be detached to be "intelligent" or have a high IQ. IQ also measures, to some extent, creativity - unless I'm mistaken, and "intelligence" is a very vague form. Beethoven was certainly passionate, but also considered intelligent.

The expert consensus on IQ holds that intelligence is comprised of the capacity to acquire knowledge, solve complex problems and to retain what was previously learned. Although some experts consider other cognitive competencies such as imagination and memory to be definitive characteristics of intelligence, they're generally deemed to be less important than the previous three.

The contention that Beethoven was intelligent is a derivative of the Multiple Intelligence Theory which is another phenomenon altogether.

 

[FDG]

The contention that Beethoven was intelligent is a derivative of the Multiple Intelligence Theory which is another phenomenon altogether.

It's anyhow hard to write extremely complex music without having the ability to first comprehend the theory, acquire the necessary stylistic tools, and then solve the "problem" of making it all fit together.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Apparently Ne users can't be illogical.

Logic fail. (...) <- I can fix one of the 'x''s in your type at this point. You're not an N.

If anything she should have said, "you're not a Ti user" (sic)

 

[Infinite Bubble]

I haven't been here long enough to have any specific quotes, but I have heard things such as:

'I have a super-great memory; therefore I'm a Si user.'

'Today the phone rang, and before I picked it up, I guessed who it was... and I was right! That means I'm Ni-dominant!

'I'm INTP because I hate everyone.'

'I can't use Se; I hate sports.'

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

'Today the phone rang, and before I picked it up, I guessed who it was... and I was right! That means I'm Ni-dominant!

lol

 

[WALMART]

I have a super-great memory; therefore I'm a Si user.''

Functional literalism would state a developed memory would be having developed Si/Ni as well.

 

[Aesthete]

The expert consensus on IQ holds that intelligence is comprised of the capacity to acquire knowledge, solve complex problems and to retain what was previously learned. Although some experts consider other cognitive competencies such as imagination and memory to be definitive characteristics of intelligence, they're generally deemed to be less important than the previous three.

Yes, but imagination is needed to to acquire a priori knowledge to some extent, and certainly to solve complex problems (unless "complex" just means using a taught theory with numbers higher by a few digits, as an example).

The contention that Beethoven was intelligent is a derivative of the Multiple Intelligence Theory which is another phenomenon altogether.

I disagree: for Beethoven (or any other musician) to have composed music, he would have needed combinations of the aforementioned traits which comprise intelligence - otherwise we would just have noise.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Don't bother^^
He simply has no idea what he's talking about. He has no notion of what kind of 'thinking' (or 'feeling') is necessary for music composition, especially at the level of genius like Beethoven, Mozart, et alii. Intuitive processes are often disturbing to the rationalist mindset; hence the overreliance on IQ, 'cognitive processes', etc, and the idea that this viewpoint is superior by nature…

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Don't bother^^
He simply has no idea what he's talking about. He has no notion of what kind of 'thinking' (or 'feeling') is necessary for music composition, especially at the level of genius like Beethoven, Mozart, et alii. Intuitive processes are often disturbing to the rationalist mindset; hence the overreliance on IQ, 'cognitive processes', etc, and the idea that this viewpoint is superior by nature…

I find this characterization to be pejorative and thoroughly deprecatory. Aesthete's observation is worthy of serious analysis. His contention seems to be that the conventional qualities of intelligence are generally necessary in order to excel at music composition, although this is plausible, this line of inquiry is often overlooked by most experts of intelligence theories. They often seem to maintain that musical competencies are manifestations of a unique type of a cognitive ability that is largely independent of analytical reasoning, information-retention faculties or those that are needed for acquisition of new information. I know very little about what is necessary in order to excel at musical composition on the level that Beethoven excelled at it, so I won't comment on that. All I can report is the expert consensus on this subject-matter.

 

[miss fortune]

ok... this is definitely egregious enough to have a place in this thread

I'm not sure this cheating problem is type related; it sounds like something any sleezy bastard of any type could do.

If you want to know what types are more likely to do this sort of thing though, the ISTP and their lack of loyalty would make them an option.

and at least learn to spell sleazy or use a browser with spell check built in!

 

[Glycerine]

ok... this is definitely egregious enough to have a place in this thread



and at least learn to spell sleazy or use a browser with spell check built in!

It's worse than the "ENFPs and cheating" thread.

 

[miss fortune]

It's worse than the "ENFPs and cheating" thread.

if I'd known that one existed I'd have just posted a link as a response to the op!

 

[Nicki]

If someone's promiscuous, that person is automatically an ESxP.

 

[Glycerine]

if I'd known that one existed I'd have just posted a link as a response to the op!

So I guess having a lot of Pness equates to cheating.

 

[miss fortune]

So I guess having a lot of Pness equates to cheating.

if you're a chick... GIVING a lot of Pness equates to cheating if you're a dude

unless you're gay, and then that just confuses things here

 

[hazelsees]

How about a How TO Do Typology for us new people?
We don't want to mess it all up, ya know.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

How about a How TO Do Typology for us new people?
We don't want to mess it all up, ya know.

I think that question is far too complicated to be answered in one thread. Besides, typology can be an enormously creative endeavor, I wouldn't want to lead you to develop rigid thinking habits by prescribing specific ways of analyzing problems of typology. I'd rather have you find your own way by learning about the mistakes others are making and hopefully you'll soon figure out how to do typology by learning to do the opposite of what the people quoted in this thread do.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I voted ESTP because of a) hypersexuality b)not always having a woman on hand to solve the aforementioned hypersexuality c)there is logic behind it as animals cannot say no.

Other than that my second choice would be 2w3 (any variant) and any introverted sx/so type. "Fuck the world and fuck...that animal too."

The assertion that a person is hypersexual because he belongs to a certain type such as an ESTP is fallacious. At best, people of a certain temperament may have a very slight tendency to display particular sexual tendencies, but the claim that a person of one particular type is hyper-sexual by definition is untenable.

There is very little evidence to suggest that members of one type are more likely to engage in zooerastia, peculiar fetishistic behaviors or any other acts of sexual perversion than members of another type.

 

[Society]

[insert personality type] often have slim arms, legs and torso. They look rather slow and relaxed, especially among friends. However, some of them are very nimble but they tend to suffer from a lack of co-ordination, giving the impression that they do it deliberately. they often have big, straight, sharp noses.