Thank you for the explanation. I may post something in the thread after all.
I was subjected to lots of verbal bullying as a child, so I think because of that I was responding to it a bit more personally and emotionally than I generally do. Ironically, I think it was the childish language that did it, becuase it reminded me of the playground bullies.
Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser
The purpose of the thread was to open a dialogue about why some people with a thinking preference seem to see "Thinking" as superior to "Feeling". Due to the nature of the topic I knew some would want to give thoughtful answers, some would mostly vent, and some would do both. I wanted to give people the freedom to reply in whatever way they wanted. For most of the "venting" options I worded them in a tongue-in-cheek way, i.e. "they're big meanies", heh. "Emotionally immature" wasn't meant to be tongue-in-cheek though. I used that phrase because I would consider a younger version of myself to be emotionally immature. It wasn't really meant to be an insult, but if you want to be insulted then you are more than free to feel that way.
Also I don't see why people make a big deal about certain threads existing. If you don't like it, then the simple solution is to avoid it. For example I think this thread was pretty pointless from the get go, so I was going to avoid posting in it. I changed my mind though since I figured I owed Ilah an explanation.
wow, i didn't realize this thread was so close to what i was saying. here's the thing, when i made the vs N intelligence thread, i never claimed what type is better. never. all i claimed was which is more intelligent. no value judgments anywhere. it is also true that i may say "i can't stand type x" but that does not mean i'm saying 'type x is worse than type y', all i'm saying is 'due to my MBTI typing, natural conflicts occur when i come into contact with type x'. that's it.
as for asking the wrong questions, to be honest, i don't think there is such a thing. surely you can say 'being intelligent is more important than being intelligent because you're an N' but then again, who's undermining the importance of being intelligent? who is intelligent goes beyond needing to theorize with MBTI. i think you are also dismissing the usefulness of questions too easily. if say we find that N's in general are more intelligent than S's, then should we not encourage our young to see the bigger picture rather than just facts if we want to boost their intelligence? i truly believe in the good of discussion for the sake of it. if anything, it makes for a more relaxed environment and when people are at ease, they are more willing to share their theories.
i do hate the 'F vs T' threads though because of the value judgments. there's no justifying calling F's immature for example.
Okay, I'm sick of everyone dissing everyone else's types! All it does is make everyone feel bad. NO TYPE IS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER. EVERY LETTER HAS ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES. N is no smarter than S is no smarter than N.
All this typological hostility is the entire reason that I made an account here. One of the purposes of MBTI is to make it easier to work with those that are different from you! No one can work together if they're all bitchy and superior and look down their nose at anyone with a different letter than them. I mean, just because you think differently from someone else doesn't mean your method of thinking is superior. The world would be a scary place if everyone was an S, or everyone was an N. PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT SO THEY CAN BALANCE EACH OTHER OUT. NO ONE IS PERFECT.
Okay, I'll stop now because I've already repeated myself too much. Overall, I'd say that I agree with uberfuhrer, but not the person who started this thread. This thread was started to combat superiority threads, and yet it starts with a blatant insult to Sensory thinking. Only slightly hypocritical, really.
You are missing something here. It says A equals B that means, I bought tickets to go to a game. Other things would be A unequals B , or B is not part of A. .
B equals part of A, not necessarily all of A. B would equal all of A if it said B if and only if if A.
Again distinction between 'if' and 'if and only if'. If it is just 'if' they merely overlap with each other to some degree, but not necessarily to the entire.
Originally Posted by entropie
Yea I know, you do not have to explain, we had a dictator once . What I wanted to say was more like, they do not need a logical cause to do their things, so logic cant be the fundamental thing to make a judgement at this point. But I am splitting hairs here, guess we both know what is meant.
They should organize their activities logically in order to ensure they know what they're doing.
"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain
“No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson
"How dreadful!" cried Lord Henry. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect." ~ Oscar Wilde - The picture of Dorian Gray