• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why is it SJ and SP....

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Just to agree with most of the first page and ensure the OP was answered despite me being distracted, ST and SF has as much meaning as NF and NT, just as NP and NJ have as much meaning as SP and SJ.
Couldn't agree with this more.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
He's relaying perception, not manipulating it. I happen to agree with it.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Confirmation bias is the selective processing of information. So, if you are addressing what I was referring to, it does cover anything in which an existing belief in a system influences the mind's ability to process information outside of it, yes.
Do you think circumlocution is impressive?

Do you think insisting that typology forces ignorance is true?

Read this as carefully as you can: It's impossible to not be using either iNtuition, Thinking, Feeling, or Sensing.

Unless your brain doesn't work, or doesn't work properly a person either taking in information (be it text, or taste or ___), or dealing with it (be it affection or organizing or ___). And even most psychoses don't keep one from doing these things. They do not attempt to precisely account for very specific behavior. Very specific behavior can however, be put into these large categories.

Function theory just gave those things a name. Awareness of type does not prohibit awareness of other systems. It doesn't impede awareness of other things anymore than any other analytic procedure. It's just a kit to name, without preventing more precise nomenclature, broad cognitive products or activities.
 

Mondo

Welcome to Sunnyside
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
1,992
MBTI Type
EsTP
Enneagram
6w7
Oh, heck no, I'm very un-bothered by my J-ness, I'm positively DELIGHTED by my J-ness. I just want to get to use two middle letters too.
It's just nicer.

I see where you're coming from too.
J-ness is a lot less awkward to say or type than the other version, ;).. but I'll do it anyway...


P-NESS!!!!!
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Do you think circumlocution is impressive?

Do you think insisting that typology forces ignorance is true?

Read this as carefully as you can: It's impossible to not be using either iNtuition, Thinking, Feeling, or Sensing.

Unless your brain doesn't work, or doesn't work properly a person either taking in information (be it text, or taste or ___), or dealing with it (be it affection or organizing or ___). And even most psychoses don't keep one from doing these things. They do not attempt to precisely account for very specific behavior. Very specific behavior can however, be put into these large categories.

Function theory just gave those things a name. Awareness of type does not prohibit awareness of other systems. It doesn't impede awareness of other things anymore than any other analytic procedure. It's just a kit to name, without preventing more precise nomenclature, broad cognitive products or activities.

Aie. It's like a constant non-sequitur with you. Just support the groupings in the OP please: NT/NF/SP/SJ. Why are those good groups, as compared to ,say, NT/NF/SF/ST (if you believe those are the relevent functions). I don't care about your hard-wired belief in a system or to explain how having such a deep belief causes confirmation bias.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Aie. It's like a constant non-sequitur with you. Just support the groupings in the OP please: NT/NF/SP/SJ. Why are those good groups, as compared to ,say, NT/NF/SF/ST (if you believe those are the relevent functions). I don't care about your hard-wired belief in a system or to explain how having such a deep belief causes confirmation bias.
Behavior. I can only hope the differences are obvious to you, because I'm not going to explain them.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Behavior. I can only hope the differences are obvious to you, because I'm not going to explain them.

Oh oh, I get to go back to patronizing!

I respect your opinion, but I'm afraid that opinions are not what I'm looking for today.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Oh oh, I get to go back to patronizing!

I respect your opinion, but I'm afraid that opinions are not what I'm looking for today.
Your position is that the groupings mean nothing, and shouldn't be, is that correct? That only the sixteen types themselves are valid classifications?
 

Martoon

perdu fleur par bologne
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,361
MBTI Type
INTP
I've always had the understanding that the categorization was based on the following theory:

Ns are more defined by their abstract, internal process (i.e., what they're thinking or feeling), and how they go about coming up with things. Thinking vs. Feeling is a significant differentiator in how they do this.

Ss are more defined by their external interaction with the concrete world. Perceiving vs. Judging is a significant differentiator in how they do this.

Not saying I agree with this, just that that's been my understanding of the reasoning given behind the category partitions. I don't know where I got this; I'm sure I remember reading or hearing it somewhere, and that's how it's been filed in my brain since.

Since no one's mentioned it that way in this thread, though, I'm beginning to question if/where I got this info.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Is gravity a confirmation bias? I just figure, since it's unavoidable, and it's not always thought about, leaving room for awareness of other things, these of course being shared traits between gravity and functions.

Another is that the words name processes for when we do want to think about them. If that's confirmation bias then fine. I'm a victim like The Flak.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it ought to be corrected since, I assume, you were making a point against or for the OP. I was less interested in how it related than the fact that you were wrong.
 

Cimarron

IRL is not real
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
3,417
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I've always had the understanding that the categorization was based on the following theory:

Ns are more defined by their abstract, internal process (i.e., what they're thinking or feeling), and how they go about coming up with things. Thinking vs. Feeling is a significant differentiator in how they do this.

Ss are more defined by their external interaction with the concrete world. Perceiving vs. Judging is a significant differentiator in how they do this.
I don't see how that's the case, since Thinking and Feeling are the "modes" of the judging function. It sounds to me like comparing peanut butter sandwiches to soup, instead of peanut butter sandwiches to chicken noodle soup, or just sandwiches to soup. Though maybe there is more behind it that I don't see...
 

Bella

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,510
MBTI Type
ISTJ
No, it's like this: 'Let's just define those big ole lumpy S's by their ''external interaction with the concrete world", they don't do much feeling or thinking in any case, now do they, heheee, dumb ogres, heehheee.'

Whatever.
 

Giggly

No moss growing on me
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
9,661
MBTI Type
iSFj
Enneagram
2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
U.S. Population breakdown according to type

from wikipedia

ISFJ -13.8%
ESFJ -12.3%
ISTJ -11.6%
ISFP -8.8%
ESTJ -8.7%
ESFP -8.5%
ENFP -8.1%
ISTP -5.4%
ESTP -4.3%
INFP -4.3%
INTP -3.3%
ENTP -3.2%
ENFJ -2.4%
INTJ -2.1%
ENTJ -1.8%
INFJ -1.5%
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Your position is that the groupings mean nothing, and shouldn't be, is that correct? That only the sixteen types themselves are valid classifications?

No... You are polarizing my position - I stated only that the grouping are arbitary, and when I bothered to respond in any detail, explained that the 4 traits are unique directions of measurement. It's those that define the available groupings.

You are the one stating that the one grouping is more valid (differential) than the others, because it's something "you see". I'm saying that you see the differences because you *look* for those differences. By definition, each of the traits are unique, and flattening type into any of those dimensions will simple flatten the measurements along those trait lines.

Is gravity a confirmation bias?

What the hell? No, that's not confirmation bias. Seeing a magnet attract something downward and calling it gravity would be confirmation bias. Seeing only gravity everywhere you look, defining everything by gravity, not seeing anything by gravity would be confirmation bias.

Yeesh.

Pardon my ignorance, but I thought it ought to be corrected since, I assume, you were making a point against or for the OP. I was less interested in how it related than the fact that you were wrong.

Confirmation bias referred to the OP, in context, to the perception of greater differences due to the existing groupings. What you said didn't reject anything I said, it didn't even address anything I said. What do functions have to do with any of this? The groups don't even separate into functions!

It's more like how you will naturally classify behavior against functions because that's what you see in the world. You will omit information or force information to fit your model, rejecting other ideas, concepts and even data in order to preserve your conceptual model.

Functions equal gravity, confirmation bias as gravity? Gawd, it's conversations like this that make me question my use of time!
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
What the hell? No, that's not confirmation bias. Seeing a magnet attract something downward and calling it gravity would be confirmation bias. Seeing only gravity everywhere you look, defining everything by gravity, not seeing anything by gravity would be confirmation bias.
But gravity is everywhere. Everything has it. Even negligible entities like subatomic particles.

Just like type. It's everywhere. It can't be avoided. You can see it everywhere because it is everywhere. Even the most minute behavior fits in somewhere.

If understood properly, it does not coerce its proponents to ignore or deny validity of counteracting information.

Confirmation bias referred to the OP, in context, to the perception of greater differences due to the existing groupings.
That's true.
You weren't exactly clear in the post I originally responded to, or any of the ones leading up to it.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
No... You are polarizing my position - I stated only that the grouping are arbitary, and when I bothered to respond in any detail, explained that the 4 traits are unique directions of measurement. It's those that define the available groupings.

You are the one stating that the one grouping is more valid (differential) than the others, because it's something "you see". I'm saying that you see the differences because you *look* for those differences. By definition, each of the traits are unique, and flattening type into any of those dimensions will simple flatten the measurements along those trait lines.
I can see with crystalline clarity that you're avoiding stating an argument so you "can't be defeated." I've had the confidence to state my position. What is yours? I asked plainly if it was that grouping further than 16 types was nonsense, and you say "No." So, you must believe splitting into fewer than 16 categories is sensible, but won't admit in what way, yet still claim that my choice of grouping is arbitrary, and therefore invalid. The entirity of personality study is arbitrary, meaning based on someone's perception and analysis.

Claiming that I'm looking for the differences I want to see would normally be considered an insult, but it only illustrates perception problems on your end, because it simply isn't true.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I can see with crystalline clarity that you're avoiding stating an argument so you "can't be defeated." I've had the confidence to state my position. What is yours? I asked plainly if it was that grouping further than 16 types was nonsense, and you say "No." So, you must believe splitting into fewer than 16 categories is sensible, but won't admit in what way, yet still claim that my choice of grouping is arbitrary, and therefore invalid. The entirity of personality study is arbitrary, meaning based on someone's perception and analysis.

Blah blah.

I said that any division of categories is arbitary and serves to flatten those traits. Nothing wrong with that, and as I have said before, more than once, nothing special about it either. You positively assert that one asymmetrical grouping is superior than the others, and I disagreed. You can reread post 30 and 40, of mine, where I clarified my stance and explained why I thought that way, respectively. Feel free to point me to any post in which you actually supported your position (preferrably not the ones where you told me you don't intend to).

In case you don't find my older posts enough: You aren't wrong when you group, only when you say that one is dominant over the other. Dominant requires you to observe particular traits->behaviors more than others (hence, if you do believe it to be dominant, it is confirmation bias).

You weren't exactly clear in the post I originally responded to, or any of the ones leading up to it.

I would of clarified, but I had no clue what you were referring to (granted, those posts were just jabs with Jack, so I agree that they weren't clear - I certainly didn't put any effort in them.)
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
I said that any division of categories is arbitary and serves to flatten those traits. Nothing wrong with that, and as I have said before, more than once, nothing special about it either. You positively assert that one asymmetrical grouping is superior than the others, and I disagreed. You can reread post 30 and 40, of mine, where I clarified my stance and explained why I thought that way, respectively. Feel free to point me to any post in which you actually supported your position (preferrably not the ones where you told me you don't intend to).
On what basis am I supposed to support my position when I have nothing to compare it to? Am I to say my system is better than a tree? Than God? Than mathematics? You're asking me to redefine the word good.

You can insult the analyst for bothering to think about things, and classify things, but if you have nothing to offer, and no stance of your own, why not let him go about his business?

Your niche in this thread has been nothing but "the antagonist," inconsequential and simply irritating.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
On what basis am I supposed to support my position when I have nothing to compare it to? Am I to say my system is better than a tree? Than God? Than mathematics? You're asking me to redefine the word good.

If your group is better than the other groupings, then maybe you could justify your grouping compared to... you know... the other possible groupings.

Or, you could even explain why you think your grouping has any meaning at all! It wouldn't prove your statement, but at least it'd have content.
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
If your group is better than the other groupings, then maybe you could justify your grouping compared to... you know... the other possible groupings.

Or, you could even explain why you think your grouping has any meaning at all! It wouldn't prove your statement, but at least it'd have content.
Here's the rub, Chuck. Most people already agree with me. I don't like to debate without good reason, because there's stress involved. But if you want to present a clear position and try your hand against mine, let's have it.

(Still, I'm sure most of my reasons are in Please Understand Me II, so I'd be rehasing the old. Not because it's my Bible, because the reasoning makes sense.)
 
Top