Are we over-assigning N to people here?

[Arclight]

^^ tis true.

That process of speaking for everyone of a type distorts understanding quite a bit, I think. I have trouble bringing myself to declare one type because I find two pigeon holes provides a little more potential understanding than just one. That way the person reading a post can choose which set of stereotypes best apply to me at the time. I'm not sure people consciously realize just how much like clay a given post is which can be molded in their perceptions based on what type they think the person is and overlay all its accompanying stereotypes.

I was in a debate months ago in which everything I said was in almost complete agreement with the position of someone who was an SJ. The individual we were debating against responded to the SJ post with comments like "typical Sensor", "reign in the Fe why don't you", etc. They responded positively to mine saying it was insightful and intuitive. In my estimation we were saying THE SAME THING. Perhaps I should have made a pointed issue out of it, but instead I saw it as a lost cause and left the thread not to return. It actually annoyed me quite a bit. Perceptions that are willfully distorted through a prejudicial lens can at times exasperate me, but it is something that must be let go of because what can change it? If there isn't a common reference point then there is no meeting ground to negotiate, grow, or increase understanding. Than again, that willful blindness is also part of reality and must be responded to in the most constructive way which in many cases is simply letting go.

very well put.

i can't help but give this issue weight when i think about how others come here when they are looking for answers because of someone they know or even themselves. to read and figure out their own type or another's, naturally using comparisons as one way.

i'm reminded of it every time someone comes to these forums and asks for advice. it drives home, for me, just how much weight they put on what they read.

ugh. it's like being unable to stop a teacher teaching a class of first graders that the world is flat.

Thank you both.. What I have problems with sometimes is articulation or finding the "mot juste"..
After reading both your posts I am happy to say I found it..

The word is "Irresponsible" and that is why I become so upset.. because the described behavior is simply Irresponsible.

Again I thank you both..

 

[digesthisickness]

it really doesn't help when you become annoyed at people lumping ALL people of a certain letter together either... you just get stuck arguing with some silly kid who thinks that it's obviously true

Luckily, I don't really MIND any of the other ESTPs here enough to be really irked by that!

so true. i got over it by asking myself, "sooo, digest, do you plan on following every single post, 24 hours a day, for the rest of your life and then, of course, living forever? no? then let it go, girl." and, i replied, "*sigh* you are so right. once again!"

 

[the state i am in]

That process of speaking for everyone of a type distorts understanding quite a bit, I think.

i agree, but i also take as a foundation that thought and language and individual consciousness is itself a distortion. we're processing the information we have- but of course it is incomplete.

i think that there is a fundamental tension between complete generalization and radical specificity. both can become absolutist, and in each case both provide a destruction of meaning.

i like generalizations because they provide an overarching way to begin to view something (and because i'm Ni!- this is why young infjs get called vague and abstract in their writing!). when i stay only at that overarching level without finding substantiation, engaging the details, i impose a map of meaning that traps the particularities and forces them to conform in ways that erase and iron out their true nuance, that avoid the effort to finesse the differences.

on the other hand, fear of generalizations disallows the type of meaning predicated on identity, on saying that two things are the same in such and such a way, that there is a unity that belongs to two things. without this we cannot connect a big picture, build larger scale models and representations of meaning, detect systemic patterns, assume ecological significance, etc.

in either process the ability to scale, to move back and forth between larger more abstract topological visions and more substantiated ones, along with along both spaces room to breathe, is necessary in order to maintain accuracy and allow yourself the ability to gain feedback, revise your thinking system, and learn from other minds/maps/models of how the world works.

 

[Arclight]

i agree, but i also take as a foundation that thought and language and individual consciousness is itself a distortion. we're processing the information we have- but of course it is incomplete.

i think that there is a fundamental tension between complete generalization and radical specificity. both can become absolutist, and in each case both provide a destruction of meaning.

i like generalizations because they provide an overarching way to begin to view something (and because i'm Ni!- this is why young infjs get called vague and abstract in their writing!). when i stay only at that overarching level without finding substantiation, engaging the details, i impose a map of meaning that traps the particularities and forces them to conform in ways that erase and iron out their true nuance, that avoid the effort to finesse the differences.

on the other hand, fear of generalizations disallows the type of meaning predicated on identity, on saying that two things are the same in such and such a way, that there is a unity that belongs to two things. without this we cannot connect a big picture, build larger scale models and representations of meaning, detect systemic patterns, assume ecological significance, etc.

in either process the ability to scale, to move back and forth between larger more abstract topological visions and more substantiated ones, along with along both spaces room to breathe, is necessary in order to maintain accuracy and allow yourself the ability to gain feedback, revise your thinking system, and learn from other minds/maps/models of how the world works.

This works great until we start dealing with human beings.
What appears on surface can seem so similar and yet have a completely different motivation or origin.
One person's aggression is born out the need to control and it's purpose to establish dominance .. anothers is born out of fear and it purpose to preserve personal space.
Both behaviors on the surface look exactly the same.

 

[the state i am in]

This works great until we start dealing with human beings.
What appears on surface can seem so similar and yet have a completely different motivation or origin.
One person's aggression is born out the need to control and it's purpose to establish dominance .. anothers is born out of fear and it purpose to preserve personal space.
Both behaviors on the surface look exactly the same.

i'm not sure what your referent "this" refers to, how you understand what i wrote, or what question you are trying to posit.

i agree that behaviors can look similarly. and that on the surface much can look the same. i don't feel that i am looking on the surface. the generalizations i choose to adopt are the ones that i feel like provide coherency and meaning to human events, particularly motivations. i feel like they help me recognize differences more than they force me to avoid them. if i have to avoid them, i feel the cognitive dissonance, or, i feel the social dissonance associated with saying something in a way that others conflict with. that process involves both a communicative composition (ie an ability to materialize the model as you see it), and the fact that the model needs feedback in order to become more complex, nuanced, and accurate. bc it's a generalized model based on a small fraction of experience.

 

[Arclight]

i'm not sure what your referent "this" refers to, how you understand what i wrote, or what question you are trying to posit.

i agree that behaviors can look similarly. and that on the surface much can look the same. i don't feel that i am looking on the surface. the generalizations i choose to adopt are the ones that i feel like provide coherency and meaning to human events, particularly motivations. i feel like they help me recognize differences more than they force me to avoid them. if i have to avoid them, i feel the cognitive dissonance, or, i feel the social dissonance associated with saying something in a way that others conflict with. that process involves both a communicative composition (ie an ability to materialize the model as you see it), and the fact that the model needs feedback in order to become more complex, nuanced, and accurate. bc it's a generalized model based on a small fraction of experience.

I guess what I am trying to say is.. people are unpredictable and everyone is unique .. So no matter how much you think you can identify "patterns" in their behavior and that these patterns qualify you to make generalizations based on "personal" observations .. someone, somewhere is going to prove the generalization wrong . So somewhere along the way the generalization breaks down and this corrupts all the data. In simple terms.. generalizations are faulty .. so any conclusion derived from them is also faulty.

 

[the state i am in]

So somewhere along the way the generalization breaks down and this corrupts all the data. In simple terms.. generalizations are faulty .. so any conclusion derived from them is also faulty.

i don't see an incomplete generalization as corrupting "all" the data. i see it as being incomplete, and needing space to evolve, adapt, etc. i see all processes as requiring space to learn, or they break down, lose contact with the actual conditions of life, and begin to assert dogmatically meaning that may change.

at the same time, asserting that because something changes, or because we have incomplete knowledge, we can know nothing, seems to be a mistake of equal significance, dogmatism, extremism. it's also highly impractical. the ability to use modality successfully, assert likelihood while not being BLIND to feedback that tells you otherwise, is about as good as it gets. you can't avoid being wrong, you can only avoid not learning from your wrong and instead changing it in the future.

 

[Laurie]

The things you guys are complaining about would be fit with that situation if he was actually talking about someone doing the same things.

I don't disagree that people are lumped together.

 

[Arclight]

i don't see an incomplete generalization as corrupting "all" the data. i see it as being incomplete, and needing space to evolve, adapt, etc. i see all processes as requiring space to learn, or they break down, lose contact with the actual conditions of life, and begin to assert dogmatically meaning that may change.

at the same time, asserting that because something changes, or because we have incomplete knowledge, we can know nothing, seems to be a mistake of equal significance, dogmatism, extremism. it's also highly impractical. the ability to use modality successfully, assert likelihood while not being BLIND to feedback that tells you otherwise, is about as good as it gets. you can't avoid being wrong, you can only avoid not learning from your wrong and instead changing it in the future.

I am pretty sure that is what I have been trying to say this whole time. I think we are coming to it from different angles. while you focus on the generalization, I focus on the wild card .. but it adds up to the same thing where I am standing.

 

[Arclight]

The things you guys are complaining about would be fit with that situation if he was actually talking about someone doing the same things.

I don't disagree that people are lumped together.

I see two people having a discussion.. and learning from each other.. or at least I am learning something..

Where does the complaining come into play?

Why do you interpret everything I say negatively??

 

[miss fortune]

so true. i got over it by asking myself, "sooo, digest, do you plan on following every single post, 24 hours a day, for the rest of your life and then, of course, living forever? no? then let it go, girl." and, i replied, "*sigh* you are so right. once again!"

I've taken to ignoring entire sections of the forum anymore unless I'm feeling snarky... the assurance that someone's going to use the MBTI to overgeneralize or all in all make an ass of themselves is WAY too high

and like was mentioned... it's annoying that even threads asking for relationship advice all boil down to things like "well, yeah... he's an ISTP, he's probably emotionally closed off and just wants sex, nothing deeper"

 

[Jeffster]

what the hell is going on in this thread

The over-assigned Ns are arguing about stuff that has nothing to do with the original topic, as usual.

 

[Saslou]

And an 'S' is going to derail the thread further

Apparently making any broad statement about a group of people is bad. I told him to read some victor threads but he hasn't jumped on that wagon yet, I guess.

Making sweeping statements about a group of people is not bad, however it is close minded. I personally think the best one can do is use the word 'I' as opposed to 'We'.

actually, that used to be a small pet peeve of mine; one i've had to learn to just let go of. when so many entps speak for me and all other entps. so many times, i've gritted my teeth while reading something written by another 'entp' because it wasn't true at all, and now that 'information' is out there. false and throwing off everyone who follows later and reads it. and, if that's not bad enough, then later, after spreading all of those 'facts', they change their type.

but, i can't go around saying, "stop speaking for all entps" every time, so i've had to let it go. to do anything else would be a losing battle.

basically, it's made it to where telling anyone that i'm an entp doesn't do anything to bring us closer (and maybe even further apart) because god knows what they think they know about me based on something they read or was told.

oh well.

.. I need to let this go as at present am fighting a losing battle.
Because heaven forbid an SF can think of infinite possibilities and be open to other theories. *sigh*

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Heh, a lot of tests that people take to determine their type will mistype people in the first place. Then they read a type description which includes a lot of stereotypes which may or may not apply to any given person of that type. When you consider all of the problems with the typing system to begin with, it's understandable how the typical joe on the internet can get the details wrong.

So to make a long story short (too late), yeah we assign N to too many people.

 

[tcda]

Maybe MBTI statistics under-assign N to the general population.

Especially considering that popular culture, the education system and the economy, discourage "N" pursuits for "teh plebs", and encourage us to think only pragmatically, and not theoretically.

I cansee why in such a culture, people who look for more intelligent discussion than watching reality TV, may well be driven to online forums.

 

[the state i am in]

Making sweeping statements about a group of people is not bad, however it is close minded. I personally think the best one can do is use the word 'I' as opposed to 'We'.

"i personally think" one would be wrong in saying that individuals would be "best" to do ______. you're still saying that you know what's best for everyone individually and collectively. you're still trying to universalize your values and your perspective for everyone else. isn't it close-minded to think you know what is "the best" for other people?

in this universalizing way, i don't think you're actually trying to even avoid generalizations. it's just more of a victim stance (which is what this thread is really about, that the culture of N types on this forum (and this forum alone) excludes S types in most cases, is many times directly opposed to it). the forum is its own community with its own sense of social value, rank, status, etc. being a minority can be shitty when the majority starts ignoring you, assuming to know everything about you, and basically discarding you. this is why i usually hate groups.

i think, in general, the common S objection is not with the theory in itself. it's more with thinking that your abstractions can really get you anywhere, that what is in front of you is far more significant than what you imagine. that objects are just objects, etc. i see SP types more specifically turned off by generalizations (all p types, really), just like SJ types often use generalizations (all j types, really). it's just a step in the process in how each type creates meaning.

 

[miss fortune]

^ and that post generalizes types as well... *sigh*

 

[Jaguar]

Making sweeping statements about a group of people is not bad, however it is close minded. I personally think the best one can do is use the word 'I' as opposed to 'We'.

Since they have no identity of their own and can only find an identity by being part of a type group, they say: "We."
Unhealthy, but true.

Because heaven forbid an SF can think of infinite possibilities and be open to other theories. *sigh*

We have a lot of ignorant people here, most of whom are alleged Ns. The operative word being, alleged.
Jung's theory of bipolarity was tested years ago by June Singer and Mary Loomis. Jung's bipolarity claim, didn't hold up. It failed.
99.9% of those in this forum either don't know it's true, or choose to ignore it.

Hell, I've seen S's in this forum who have demonstrated better insight with people than alleged N's.
I've also seen alleged N's take entire posts at face value, demonstrating no ability to understand metaphor, analogy, or any type of figurative language.

A person's alleged type doesn't mean much, around here.

 

[Riva]

Simple answer to the title is yes.

 

[Arclight]

^ and that post generalizes types as well... *sigh*

Seems there is no escaping it..
We are limited by our own perceptions (is that a generalization?)