User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 82

  1. #11
    Senior Member Nighthawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    Well it's funny, in D&D type games I've often noticed INTP's being either true neutral or chaotic neutral... and going for Druid/Rogue/Mage. I have yet to see one play Lawful Good, let alone a Paladin.
    I do have a lower level Paladin toon on WoW, as well as a Priest ... but I don't play them very often. It is true that I'm more drawn to the druid and rogue.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Well, I'll give you that INTJs are a bit more... visionary... than most ENTJs. But having an INTJ GF as well as working with and knowing quite a few NTJs outside of that, I don't see a significant difference between them.
    Well, then all is lost for you my friend... If you cannot see such big differences, I don't know what to tell you.

    But I certainly see no tendency towards being "good" or "noble" at all... both for INTJs or ENTJs. Both seem to be heavily driven towards active support roles in general (not-DPS, so tanks healers buffers).
    Are you really sure you know ENTJ's? In WoW they are over-represented as guild masters and paladins. Ask a couple of them to take an MBTI test, you'll see.

    Keep looking then!

    Hah hah, no... they just wanted to raid and took the most direct path towards their goal. Those like that level up a farming alt. Or in the case my friend, uses my hunter to farm.
    You just enjoy contradicting ENTJ's, young padawan. Aaaah... I can sense the force in this one

  3. #13
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Are you really sure you know ENTJ's? In WoW they are over-represented as guild masters and paladins. Ask a couple of them to take an MBTI test, you'll see.
    The guild masters bit I agree with. The paladin bit... I don't agree at all. I only know of two that play wow which have actually been tested and while they aren't hard core, they don't even have paladins as alts.

    The other ENTJs I know are from work, not wow. Uhmm... Good isn't the word I associate with ENTJs, in game or out.

    You just enjoy contradicting ENTJ's, young padawan. Aaaah... I can sense the force in this one
    *shrug* My experiences don't mesh with yours, that's all. Strong enough differences that I would of said the opposite of what you have...

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    The guild masters bit I agree with. The paladin bit... I don't agree at all. I only know of two that play wow which have actually been tested and while they aren't hard core, they don't even have paladins as alts.

    The other ENTJs I know are from work, not wow. Uhmm... Good isn't the word I associate with ENTJs, in game or out.
    Not 'good' for you, perhaps, but ethical and trying to do the "Right" thing for sure. At least the ones I've known have tended to be like that, and also in the Enneagram were either type 1's or type 8's, two types heavily bent on justice, being hero's, protecting others, etc.

    *shrug* My experiences don't mesh with yours, that's all. Strong enough differences that I would of said the opposite of what you have...
    Amazing to me. All the ENTJ's I've known tended to be "Good" especially. Your experiences also seem counter to what type theory would predict. Maybe we just have different definitions of what "Good" is and a person that may take strong stances towards things and try to shape his/her environment according to principles might not be seen as good for you, but it is for me.

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    *shrug* My experiences don't mesh with yours, that's all. Strong enough differences that I would of said the opposite of what you have...
    Oh, it's okay, you know -- since MBTI is just a large sham anyway and is merely pseudo-psychology cloaked in a veneer of respectability, people are free to make up whatever they want that fits their personal proclivities, regardless of contradicting experiences that are brought up on the thread.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    Not 'good' for you, perhaps, but ethical and trying to do the "Right" thing for sure. At least the ones I've known have tended to be like that, and also in the Enneagram were either type 1's or type 8's, two types heavily bent on justice, being hero's, protecting others, etc.
    I meant; Not good, not right, not ethical... I haven't met a group that was more ammoral, except INTJs. The only difference seems to be that ENTJs cover themselves with a whole lot of rationalizations while INTJs are just soul suckers and accept it.

    Amazing to me. All the ENTJ's I've known tended to be "Good" especially. Your experiences also seem counter to what type theory would predict. Maybe we just have different definitions of what "Good" is and a person that may take strong stances towards things and try to shape his/her environment according to principles might not be seen as good for you, but it is for me.
    No, type theory certainly makes no comments towards "good", except that ENTJs are power mongers, shaping their world around them. You get both spectrums of that - cult leaders, CEOs, organised crime... Heh, you get Barthilas types more than Tirion types, I'd say.

    Pursuing your own nature - pursuing power, influence and marshalling others to do it goesn't fit into any definition of good that I know of. They serve others just as far as it serves their vision.

    Now that I think about it, Paladins are a good match for ENTJs...

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Oh, it's okay, you know -- since MBTI is just a large sham anyway and is merely pseudo-psychology cloaked in a veneer of respectability, people are free to make up whatever they want that fits their personal proclivities, regardless of contradicting experiences that are brought up on the thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I meant; Not good, not right, not ethical... I haven't met a group that was more ammoral, except INTJs. The only difference seems to be that ENTJs cover themselves with a whole lot of rationalizations while INTJs are just soul suckers and accept it.
    That seems rather unlikely. ENTP's and INTP's would be way more amoral. Conscientiousness correlates with morality. Also, theoretically, it doesn't make any sense. The legal system is basically a Te machine. ENTJ's may be bent on bringing order wherever they go: this means ethics and goodness. The problem with people's conceptions of ENTJ's is the "if it's good it ain't an ENTJ" syndrome. There are plenty of nice ENTJ's. Just open your eyes for them!

    No, type theory certainly makes no comments towards "good", except that ENTJs are power mongers, shaping their world around them. You get both spectrums of that - cult leaders, CEOs, organised crime... Heh, you get Barthilas types more than Tirion types, I'd say.
    Well yes it does. Going back to Jung's definition of Extraverted Thinking, you'll see. BTW, Te is the function behind laws and the legal system. It also comes to play in some ethics.

    Pursuing your own nature - pursuing power, influence and marshalling others to do it goesn't fit into any definition of good that I know of. They serve others just as far as it serves their vision.
    There is nothing inherently bad about power. The problem is the misuse of power. Without power, you can't do anything. If you want to improve the world, how will you do it without *some* power. This is the way things get done. ENTJ's seek power when they realize corrupted people have it and they should take it back to do things the "Right" way and fair way for everyone.

    Of course, the old ways seem to be good for those who like chaos and dislike laws... Hence the false perception that ENTJ's are trying to do something bad. People perceive laws being imposed on them as "bad" so they see ENTJ's de facto as bad for doing so.

    My, My... what an earth did one of them do to you!?

  8. #18
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    That seems rather unlikely. ENTP's and INTP's would be way more amoral. Conscientiousness correlates with morality. Also, theoretically, it doesn't make any sense. The legal system is basically a Te machine. ENTJ's may be bent on bringing order wherever they go: this means ethics and goodness. The problem with people's conceptions of ENTJ's is the "if it's good it ain't an ENTJ" syndrome. There are plenty of nice ENTJ's. Just open your eyes for them!
    Heh, sounds like Wikipedia...

    Anyway, conscientiousness, to the best of my knowledge, does not reflect morality. One of the early complaints with FFM was that it lacked a moral component. I'll give you that C correlates to "contentiousness", as in acting in accordance with your own beliefs... but you'd have to be pretty ego-centric to believe that this is a standard of morality in and of itself. This is aside from the dispute that everyone acts in their own beliefs; the only significant difference between C- and C+ is that C+ will attempt to bring order (ie: force others) to act in accordance with their own "conscientiousness".

    I'll assume you are talking about deviancy with Ps... deviancy and control factors are well known, as are OC behavior, argument behavior, passive aggressive behaviors... FFM measures how people behave, and so if you accept that order is the first step towards morality, then J would be the more moral of the two.

    Lastly, J and C are weakly correlated... C and any form of moral particulars are moderately correlated. It is a hell of a stretch to go from J to moral standards.

    Well yes it does. Going back to Jung's definition of Extraverted Thinking, you'll see. BTW, Te is the function behind laws and the legal system. It also comes to play in some ethics.
    Law <> morality, especially in this context. Law here defines social order and control.

    There is nothing inherently bad about power. The problem is the misuse of power. Without power, you can't do anything. If you want to improve the world, how will you do it without *some* power. This is the way things get done.
    Yes.

    ENTJ's seek power when they realize corrupted people have it and they should take it back to do things the "Right" way and fair way for everyone.
    No. It ends with the above sentence. ENTJs seek power. Control. Order. There is no magic about ENTJs that make them fair, incorruptible or any range of requirements to have a sense of morality.

    Of course, the old ways seem to be good for those who like chaos and dislike laws...
    ENTJs are progressives, like most Ns; what is being argued has nothing to do with if they inflict change - they do.

    Hence the false perception that ENTJ's are trying to do something bad.
    I said amoral, not immoral. They act in and of their own nature, like all people do. That nature is to lead, to control, etc.

    People perceive laws being imposed on them as "bad" so they see ENTJ's de facto as bad for doing so.
    My, My... who stood up to you to get you all worked up?

    My, My... what an earth did one of them do to you!?
    Sorry, nothing - quite the opposite. You guys are very handy to have around. It's why I'm dating an INTJ (I can't handle the E, because E- is my dominant trait, dangerously so)... I work with several. I have been friends with one for over a decade and am friends with more than that now.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Anyway, conscientiousness, to the best of my knowledge, does not reflect morality. One of the early complaints with FFM was that it lacked a moral component. I'll give you that C correlates to "contentiousness", as in acting in accordance with your own beliefs... but you'd have to be pretty ego-centric to believe that this is a standard of morality in and of itself. This is aside from the dispute that everyone acts in their own beliefs; the only significant difference between C- and C+ is that C+ will attempt to bring order (ie: force others) to act in accordance with their own "conscientiousness".

    I'll assume you are talking about deviancy with Ps... deviancy and control factors are well known, as are OC behavior, argument behavior, passive aggressive behaviors... FFM measures how people behave, and so if you accept that order is the first step towards morality, then J would be the more moral of the two.

    Lastly, J and C are weakly correlated... C and any form of moral particulars are moderately correlated. It is a hell of a stretch to go from J to moral standards.
    And you can thank me for one of our ealier conversations on intpc for the argument about the J/C correlation So my own argument is biting me in the butt. Well, yes, it's true. My point precisely is that it is a tendency.

    Hence, if anything, there are reasons to believe that J's will be slightly biased towards being moral compared to P's.


    Law <> morality, especially in this context. Law here defines social order and control.
    Yes, you do have a point.

    As a sidenote, morality may be considered as a set of laws and imperatives about behavior that are structured around Te.

    Depending on the underlying philosophy, the part that Te plays may be more or less important. Kant's view on ethics functions on principles and is a very good example of Te ethics. That is, acting morally not because of any feeling for your neighbor, but for a higher standpoint of "justice".

    Ultimately, laws depend on a conception of morality.

    No. It ends with the above sentence. ENTJs seek power. Control. Order. There is no magic about ENTJs that make them fair, incorruptible or any range of requirements to have a sense of morality.
    Well, my point is precisely that Extraverted Thinking is this magic that makes them fair. Of course, unhealthy Dominant Te's may have twisted laws, principles and be in contradiction with themselves. However, healthy Dominant Te's will be by far (and I would like to really insist on this point) the most ethical, fair and just of people.

    I said amoral, not immoral. They act in and of their own nature, like all people do. That nature is to lead, to control, etc.
    I completely disagree with you. They are certainly not amoral. That is best left for INTPs. They are the ones who tend to be amoral. If anything, ENTJ's will be either moral or immoral. I would contend that this depends on their level of health.

    R&H have correlated Type 1 with Extraverted Thinking. Here's what they say about the healthy levels:

    Level 1(At Their Best): Become extraordinarily wise and discerning. By accepting what is, they become transcendentally realistic, knowing the best action to take in each moment. Humane, inspiring, and hopeful: the truth will be heard.

    Level 2: Conscientious with strong personal convictions: they have an intense sense of right and wrong, personal religious and moral values. Wish to be rational, reasonable, self-disciplined, mature, moderate in all things.

    Level 3: Extremely principled, always want to be fair, objective, and ethical: truth and justice primary values. Sense of responsibility, personal integrity, and of having a higher purpose often make them teachers and witnesses to the truth.

    My, My... who stood up to you to get you all worked up?
    Hey, I didn't realize I was *so* influential with INTP's to the point where they copy my style

    Sorry, nothing - quite the opposite. You guys are very handy to have around. It's why I'm dating an INTJ (I can't handle the E, because E- is my dominant trait, dangerously so)... I work with several. I have been friends with one for over a decade and am friends with more than that now.
    Who on earth wants to be friends with "amoral" people? And how would the ENTJ's you described be "friends"? Friendship is about trust and an important part of that is knowing that your friends have ethics!

  10. #20
    Member ferunandesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I absolutely despise WoW. However, I did try every class and managed to stick with a Night Elf Hunter to about lv. 26 or so.

    Does this make me a closet ENXP, or a closet ENXP wannabe?

Similar Threads

  1. Lolz Disney Movies and MBTI Type
    By Mondo in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 233
    Last Post: 11-08-2015, 01:22 AM
  2. Asperger's Syndrome and MBTI type.
    By TaylorS in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 06-16-2015, 07:50 PM
  3. Smiling in Pictures and MBTI Type
    By thirtyfour in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 11:08 PM
  4. Big 5 and MBTI type
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 10-11-2010, 10:14 AM
  5. Functions and MBTI types getting along
    By alcea rosea in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 11:01 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